| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Lincoln Yeoh <lyeoh(at)pop(dot)jaring(dot)my>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PREPARE TRANSACTION and webapps |
| Date: | 2005-11-11 14:13:13 |
| Message-ID: | 18081.1131718393@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 05:45:28PM +0800, Lincoln Yeoh wrote:
>> Assuming the transactions don't explicitly do any locks ...
> Every transaction takes locks, on every table it accesses. Shared lock,
> but locks anyway. UPDATEs take stronger locks, so any UPDATE may cause
> other queries to wait until you COMMIT or ABORT.
Also, the mere existence of an old open transaction restricts VACUUM's
ability to reclaim dead rows.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | vishal saberwal | 2005-11-11 14:31:19 | Re: replicator |
| Previous Message | Bill Bartlett | 2005-11-11 13:49:54 | Re: Using native win32 psql.exe using alternative cygwin - psql 8.0.0 beta 3 question |