| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks |
| Date: | 2006-12-01 17:40:46 |
| Message-ID: | 534.1164994846@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-hackers |
Actually ... wait a minute. The proposed hack covers the case of
SELECT FOR SHARE followed by SELECT FOR UPDATE within a subtransaction.
But what about SELECT FOR SHARE followed by an actual UPDATE (or DELETE)?
We certainly don't want to mark the UPDATE/DELETE as having been carried
out by the upper transaction, but there's no way we can record the
UPDATE while still remembering the previous share-lock.
So I think I'm back to the position that we should throw an error here.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2006-12-01 17:46:31 | Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-12-01 17:35:16 | Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Timasmith | 2006-12-01 17:43:57 | postgresql roadmap for horizontal scalability? |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2006-12-01 17:36:26 | Re: 8.2 Beta3-> RC1 upgrade |