Re: BUG #10315: Transactions seem to be releasing locks early?

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Tim Channell <tim(dot)channell(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL Bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: BUG #10315: Transactions seem to be releasing locks early?
Date: 2014-05-15 18:50:40
Message-ID: 20140515185040.GF25053@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 12:15:13PM -0400, Tim Channell wrote:
> Here's the relevant documentation: 
>
>  However, such a target row might have already been updated (or deleted or
> locked) by another concurrent transaction by the time it is found. In this
> case, the would-be updater will wait for the first updating transaction to
> commit or roll back (if it is still in progress)... If the first updater
> commits, the second updater will ignore the row if the first updater deleted
> it, otherwise it will attempt to apply its operation to the updated version of
> the row. The search condition of the command (the WHERE clause) is re-evaluated
> to see if the updated version of the row still matches the search condition. If
> so, the second updater proceeds with its operation using the updated version of
> the row

I think you want to read about this example:

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/transaction-iso.html#XACT-READ-COMMITTED

BEGIN;
UPDATE website SET hits = hits + 1;
-- run from another session: DELETE FROM website WHERE hits = 10;
COMMIT;

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ Everyone has their own god. +

In response to

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2014-05-15 19:02:35 Re: BUG #10329: Could not read block 0 in file "base/56100265/57047884": read only 0 of 8192 bytes
Previous Message Sean Story 2014-05-15 16:57:44 homebrew install bug