Robert, * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Sergey Koposov <kopo...@ast.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > > I understand the need of significant locking when there concurrent writes, > > but not when there only reads. But I'm not a RDBMS expert, so that's maybe > > that's misunderstanding on my side. > > If we knew in advance that no writes would come along during the > execution of a particular test case, then we could skip a lot of > locking on the reads. But we don't, so we have to be prepared for the > possibility of writes at any time, which means doing things taking > share-locks on data while it's actively being read.
Uh, we have a read-only transaction mode, don't we? Or does that not
help, because someone else, in another transaction, could take a
read-write lock?
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
