On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 05:51:47PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Suppose that we redo the LOCKTAGs per previous discussion (which I would
> like to do anyway), so that it is possible to define an lmgr lock on a
> particular tuple.
Hm. If you want I can give you the part of the patch that dealt with
c
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 11:19:34AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Another issue that we may need to think about is that there is no
>> protection against starvation: a would-be acquirer of a row lock
>> could wait forever, because there isn't any mechanism pr
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 11:19:34AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> 1. If several transactions are holding shared lock on a row, and one
> of them wants to actually modify the row (or upgrade its lock to
> exclusive), it must wait for the others to end but can then do so.
> (I think the patch does this pr
