Re: SELECT FOR UPDATE NOWAIT

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Paulo Scardine <paulos(at)cimed(dot)ind(dot)br>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SELECT FOR UPDATE NOWAIT
Date: 2003-07-23 23:09:41
Message-ID: 200307232309.h6NN9f701787@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Paulo Scardine wrote:
> LockAcquire has a "dontWait" parameter, which do just what I want.
>
> The executor level calls "heap_open(relid, RowShareLock)" when doing "FOR
> UPDATE"s.
> Should we define something like RowShareLockNoWait, so heap_open() or other
> lower level functions can call LockAcquire() with dontWait set?
>
> By the way, is this kind of question on-topic for pgsql-hackers?

I think there are two issues with implementing nowait locking:

If we have special syntax for FOR UPDATE, we will need it for other
commands that need no wait behavior, and after a while they all carry
around that cruft --- SET seems easier and more useful.

Second, I don't think we want to carry around a NOWAIT boolean in all
our structures --- a SET would control it easier. The SET can be
checked right in the lock code, and I think having it control only
exclusive locks would do almost everything we want.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2003-07-24 00:36:30 Re: this is in plain text (row level locks)
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2003-07-23 23:04:40 Re: Feature request -- Log Database Name