Re: [GENERAL] Is Pg 7.0.x's Locking Mechanism BROKEN?

From: frank <f(dot)callaghan(at)ieee(dot)org>
To: Fabrice Scemama <fabrices(at)ximmo(dot)ftd(dot)fr>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is Pg 7.0.x's Locking Mechanism BROKEN?
Date: 2000-07-27 06:39:54
Message-ID: 397FD93A.969CC447@ieee.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

Thanks Fabrice, that will help a lot.

In my applications the conflict was not a direct table conflict e.g.
USER1 locks Table1 record that references Table2 via foreign key with a
cascade update/delete enforced then
USER2 tried to lock Table2 for update on the referenced record - result both
users locked !

Is this the same scenario in your case ?
perhaps a simple test db could used to resolve if this is the issue !

Regards,
Frank.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mathieu Arnold 2000-07-27 08:16:09 Re: 4 billion record limit?
Previous Message Thomas Lockhart 2000-07-27 05:52:27 Re: Some questions on user defined types and functions.

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Zeugswetter Andreas SB 2000-07-27 08:09:29 AW: AW: AW: AW: Vacuum only with 20% old tuples
Previous Message Thomas Lockhart 2000-07-27 05:52:27 Re: Some questions on user defined types and functions.