| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Seamus Abshere <seamus(at)abshere(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Does a row lock taken out in a CTE stay in place? |
| Date: | 2017-07-11 15:45:45 |
| Message-ID: | 1604.1499787945@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Seamus Abshere <seamus(at)abshere(dot)net> writes:
> Given an update that uses CTEs like this:
> WITH
> lock_rows AS (
> SELECT 1 FROM tbl WHERE [...] FOR UPDATE
> )
> UPDATE [...]
> Will the rows in `tbl` remain locked until the UPDATE is finished?
Yes, locks are associated with a transaction not a statement or
sub-statement.
> Also, does it matter if `lock_rows` is referenced? (IIUC the query
> wouldn't be run if the CTE isn't referenced if it was for a SELECT, but
> since it's an UPDATE, it will be run anyway)
Yes, it does --- unreferenced SELECT CTEs are discarded. I thought maybe
there was an exception for FOR UPDATE, but a look at the code says
differently. In any case we would only lock rows the sub-select had
actually read, so if it's not called by the outer statement it would
still be a no-op.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2017-07-11 15:47:09 | Re: Does a row lock taken out in a CTE stay in place? |
| Previous Message | Seamus Abshere | 2017-07-11 15:36:17 | Does a row lock taken out in a CTE stay in place? |