On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 06:54:31PM -0600, Guy Rouillier wrote: > Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > > Now this can't be applied right away because it's easy to run "out of > > memory" (shared memory for the lock table). Say, a delete or update > > that touches 10000 tuples does not work. I'm currently working on a > > proposal to allow the lock table to spill to disk ... > > While not always true, in many cases the cardinality of the referenced > (parent) table is small compared to that of the referencing (child) > table. Does locking require a separate lock record for each tuple in > the child table, or just one for each tuple in the parent table with a > reference count?
Just one. (LOCALLOCK, which is private to each backend, stores how many times we hold a lock.) I just realized we not only need to be able to spill LOCK struct to disk, but also PROCLOCK ... am I right? -- Alvaro Herrera (<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) La web junta la gente porque no importa que clase de mutante sexual seas, tienes millones de posibles parejas. Pon "buscar gente que tengan sexo con ciervos incendiándose", y el computador dirá "especifique el tipo de ciervo" (Jason Alexander) ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
