| From: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nicolas Barbier <nicolas(dot)barbier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dmitry Fefelov <fozzy(at)ac-sw(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Sándor Miglécz <sandor(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Hans-Juergen Schoenig <hs(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Subject: | Re: Partitioning/inherited tables vs FKs |
| Date: | 2010-05-11 12:59:00 |
| Message-ID: | 4BE95494.7080209@cs.helsinki.fi |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
This is getting way off topic, but:
On 5/11/10 3:55 PM +0300, Nicolas Barbier wrote:
> T2> SELECT i FROM a WHERE i = 1 FOR SHARE; -- Lock a with i = 1 FOR SHARE.
> i
> ---
> 1
> (1 Zeile)
>
> T2> SELECT a_id FROM b WHERE a_id = 1; -- Check whether it's got
> anything pointing to it.
> a_id
> ------
> (0 Zeilen)
>
> T2> DELETE FROM a WHERE i = 1; -- Nope, so delete a with i = 1 (this
> blocks, because T1 is still holding the lock).
Obviously you wouldn't delete anything with a SHARE lock.
Regards,
Marko Tiikkaja
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nicolas Barbier | 2010-05-11 13:07:53 | Re: Partitioning/inherited tables vs FKs |
| Previous Message | Nicolas Barbier | 2010-05-11 12:55:12 | Re: Partitioning/inherited tables vs FKs |