Re: this is in plain text (row level locks)

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

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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