From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Thomas F(dot) O'Connell" <tfo(at)sitening(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: ROW SHARE/SELECT ... FOR UPDATE + foreign keys |
Date: | 2005-07-22 05:13:22 |
Message-ID: | 200507220513.j6M5DM209271@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs |
Thomas F. O'Connell wrote:
> What would people think of adding a note to the ROW SHARE section of
> Table-Level Locks remarking on the fact that referential integrity
> checks expressed through foreign keys do SELECT ... FOR UPDATES.
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.0/static/explicit-
> locking.html#LOCKING-TABLES
>
> It was somewhat challenging today to try to track down a pervasive
> locking issue related to a table not directly referenced in a stored
> procedure but that was referenced by a key in a table that was being
> updated.
>
> I'm not sure how this changes with the new shared row locking
> implementation in 8.1...
>
8.1 will use _shared_ row locks for such cases.
--
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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Halley Pacheco de Oliveira | 2005-07-26 10:06:42 | PostgreSQL 8.0.3 Documentation - Chapter 23. Monitoring Database Activity |
Previous Message | Thomas F. O'Connell | 2005-07-21 21:00:43 | Re: Beta Docs |