On Fri, 2011-04-29 at 10:25 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> On Thursday, April 28, 2011 11:44:37 PM Jeff Davis wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-04-28 at 07:29 +0200, pasman pasmański wrote:
> > > Hi. Yesterday i have an idea, that sometimes row locks may be skipped,
> > > when table is already locked with LOCK command. It may to reduce an
> > > overhead from row locks.
> > > What do you think about it?
> > be using row locks if they already have an EXCLUSIVE lock on the table.
> > Do you have a use-case in mind?
> It could possibly reduce the disk overhead of doing foreign key checks during
> large operations somewhat as fewer buffers would get dirtied.
> At least thats the situation where I thought about it before.
Oh, that does sound like a good use case. Doesn't sound too hard to do
either, unless I'm missing something.
Regards,
Jeff Davis