Re: User Level Lock question

From: Greg Copeland <greg(at)CopelandConsulting(dot)Net>
To: Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org>
Cc: Lance Ellinghaus <lellinghaus(at)yahoo(dot)com>, PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: User Level Lock question
Date: 2002-03-15 22:41:32
Message-ID: 1016232093.24600.47.camel@mouse.copelandconsulting.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, 2002-03-15 at 16:24, Neil Conway wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-03-15 at 14:54, Lance Ellinghaus wrote:
> > I know it does not sound like something that would need to be done, but here
> > is why I am looking at doing this...
> >
> > I am trying to replace a low level ISAM database with PostgreSQL. The low
> > level ISAM db allows locking a record during a read to allow Exclusive
> > access to the record for that process. If someone tries to do a READ
> > operation on that record, it is skipped.
>
> If the locked record is skipped, how can the application be sure it is
> getting a consistent view of the data?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Neil
>

Ya, that's what I'm trying to figure out.

It sounds like either he's doing what equates to a select for update or
more of less needs a visibility attribute for the row in question.
Either way, perhaps he should share more information on what the end
goal is so we can better address any changes in idiom that better
reflect a relational database.

Greg

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2002-03-15 22:46:09 pg_hba.conf and secondary password file
Previous Message Neil Conway 2002-03-15 22:24:02 Re: User Level Lock question