From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: foreign key locks |
Date: | 2012-11-19 12:12:25 |
Message-ID: | 20121119121225.GB28067@awork2.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2012-11-14 13:27:26 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> > > * In heap_lock_tuple's XMAX_IS_MULTI case
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > why is it membermode > mode and not membermode >= mode?
> >
> > Uh, that's a bug. Fixed. As noticed in the comment above that snippet,
> > there was a deadlock possible here. Maybe I should add a test to ensure
> > this doesn't happen.
>
> Done:
> https://github.com/alvherre/postgres/commit/df2847e38198e99f57e52490e1e9391ebb70d770
>
> (I don't think this is worth a v24 submission).
One more observation:
/*
* Get and lock the updated version of the row; if fail, return
NULL.
*/
- copyTuple = EvalPlanQualFetch(estate, relation, LockTupleExclusive,
+ copyTuple = EvalPlanQualFetch(estate, relation, LockTupleNoKeyExclusive,
That doesn't seem to be correct to me. Why is it ok to acquire a
potentially too low locklevel here?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2012-11-19 13:17:33 | review: Reduce palloc's in numeric operations |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2012-11-19 11:58:04 | Re: foreign key locks |