Re: Question Regarding Locks

From: Karsten Hilbert <Karsten(dot)Hilbert(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Question Regarding Locks
Date: 2004-10-28 16:15:05
Message-ID: 20041028181505.A2423@hermes.hilbert.loc
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-novice

Just so that I am not getting this wrong:

> BTW, a handy proxy for "row has not changed" is to see if its XMIN
> system column is still the same as before.
Considering that my business objects remember XMIN from when
they first got the row would the following sequence make sure
I am in good shape ?

begin;
select ... for update;
update ... set ... where
my_pk=<my_pk_value>
AND
xmin=<the_old_xmin>

This should either update 1 row in which case I can commit or
zero rows in which case I need to rollback and handle the merge
conflict. The reasoning would be that the condition
my_pk=my_pk_value would select the row I am interested in
while xmin=the_old_xmin would ensure that row hasn't been
modified.

Am I right or is there a flaw in my thinking ?

Thanks,
Karsten
--
GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Marco Colombo 2004-10-28 16:23:14 Re: Reasoning behind process instead of thread based
Previous Message Tim Vadnais 2004-10-28 16:14:17 field incrementing in a PL/pgSQL trigger

Browse pgsql-novice by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Reinhard Hnat 2004-10-28 16:56:04 Re: ERROR: INSERT has more target columns than expressions
Previous Message Sample, Matt (GE Healthcare) 2004-10-28 15:20:46 Bulk Loading into posgres 8.0.0