Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I was thinking of adding to TODO:
> > * Allow shared row locks for referential integrity
> > but how is that different from:
> > * Implement dirty reads and use them in RI triggers
>
> It'd be a completely different approach to solving the FK locking
> problem. I wouldn't think we'd do both.
>
> Personally I'd feel more comfortable with a shared-lock approach, if we
> could work out the scalability issues. Dirty reads seem ... well ...
> dirty.
TODO updated:
* Implement dirty reads or shared locks and use them in RI
triggers
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
