| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> |
| Cc: | Larry Douzie <cs4482003(at)yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: row level lock and table level locks |
| Date: | 2003-09-08 03:49:41 |
| Message-ID: | 27275.1062992981@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> writes:
> Now, if a subtransaction has got a lock on some tuple, and another
> transaction tree tries to grab the lock on that tuple, it should have to
> wait for the entire transaction tree to finish. But what if the
> subtransaction that got the lock aborts? Maybe the waiter could awake
> at that point.
Yes. At present, a transaction that aborts will *immediately* drop all
its locks (and other shared resources), even before waiting for its
client to acknowledge the failure. Seems to me the same should hold
true of subtransactions.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-09-08 03:54:02 | Re: row level lock and table level locks |
| Previous Message | Larry Douzie | 2003-09-08 03:45:56 | Re: row level lock and table level locks |