From: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | "'tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "'Mikheev, Vadim'" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> |
Cc: | "'pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | AW: Re: [SQL] possible row locking bug in 7.0.3 & 7.1 |
Date: | 2001-03-30 16:04:08 |
Message-ID: | 11C1E6749A55D411A9670001FA687963368268@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> To the rest on the list:
> Try the above example by adding a lock between the two lines:
>
> create function nextid( varchar(32)) returns int8 as '
> update idseq set id = id + 1 where name = $1::text;
> select * from lock1;
> select id from idseq where name = $1::text for update;
> ' language 'sql';
>
> session1:
> begin work;
> lock table lock1 in access exclusive mode;
> session 2:
> not in txn: select nextid('one'); // this blocks
> select nextid('one');
> commit work;
>
> And stare at the results you get with and without for update :-(
> Something is definitely fishy with the visibility of SELECT here.
Without "for update" I see a tuple in session2 from before session1 began.
After both complete, the net result is correct (id is incremented by 2).
This is very interesting, unfortunately I must leave Internet access until
monday since my daughter called me home, and mail is so dead slow,
that I did not even receive my last mails yet :-(
Andreas
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2001-03-30 16:56:17 | Re: RC2 schedualed for Tomorrow evening ... |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-03-30 15:52:52 | Re: [SQL] Re: pg_dump potential bug -UNIQUE INDEX on PG_SHADOW Dont!! HELP |