From: | "Jenny -" <nat_lazy(at)hotmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: this is in plain text (row level locks) |
Date: | 2003-08-05 17:57:23 |
Message-ID: | BAY1-F146uNjVuMhvqg00020ef2@hotmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
>To: "Jenny -" <nat_lazy(at)hotmail(dot)com>
>Subject: Re: [HACKERS] this is in plain text (row level locks) Date: Sat,
>02 Aug 2003 23:28:30 -0400
>
> > if row-level locks are not recorded in proclock or any other shared
>memory
> > datastructuers, then why does lockmode (array or ints) of proclock
>indicate
> > that an AccessShareLock is acquired when a row is locked by
>application.?
>
>That's a table lock --- it's independent of row locks. It's there
>mostly to ensure someone doesn't delete the whole table out from under
>you.
>
> regards, tom lane
so even though the application locks a row in a table, table-level locks are
automatically taken by postgesql ? why is that?
thanks
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andreas Pflug | 2003-08-05 17:57:39 | Re: Release changes |
Previous Message | Stephan Szabo | 2003-08-05 17:40:17 | Re: Release changes |