From: | Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | KEY UPDATE / UPDATE / NO KEY UPDATE distinction vs. README.tuplock |
Date: | 2014-10-23 14:37:46 |
Message-ID: | 3FBFACF5-B423-42EA-A2F9-D6281545A1FE@phlo.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
It seems that README.tuplock never got updated when the KEY SHARE patch's
lock level were changed from being KEY UPDATE / UPDATE / SHARE / KEY SHARE
to UPDATE / NO KEY UPDATE / SHARE / KEY SHARE.
Thus, as it stands, that file implies that SELECT FOR UPDATE obtains a
weaker lock than an actual UPDATE might take (if that update modifies key
columns) -- according to README.tuplock, the former doesn't conflict with
KEY SHARE while the actual UPDATE would.
But this isn't actually the case in the committed version of the patch -
one now needs to explicitly request that weaker lock level with SELECT FOR
NO KEY UPDATE.
The attached patch updated README.tuplock accordingly.
best regards,
Florian Pflug
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
README.tuplock.patch | application/octet-stream | 3.4 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2014-10-23 14:39:58 | Re: pg_receivexlog --status-interval add fsync feedback |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2014-10-23 14:23:43 | Re: idea: allow AS label inside ROW constructor |