| From: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'Michael J Schout'" <mschout(at)gkg(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | AW: The lightbulb just went on... |
| Date: | 2000-10-19 08:21:04 |
| Message-ID: | 11C1E6749A55D411A9670001FA6879633680B6@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> what happens to sessions is that it does:
>
> SELECT session_data, id
> FROM sessions
> WHERE id = ?
> FOR UPDATE
>
> .... client does some processing ...
>
> UPDATE sesssions set session_data = ? WHERE id = ?;
>
> (this is where the error happens)
>
> I think part of my problem might be that sessions is a view
> and not a table,
Did you create an on update do instead rule ?
This is currently not done automatically for views,
thus views without additional "create rule"s are select only.
But, I am wondering whether the "for update" places the correct lock ?
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2000-10-19 09:24:56 | Re: time stops within transaction |
| Previous Message | Chris | 2000-10-19 07:33:24 | Re: INHERITS doesn't offer enough functionality |