| From: | Jim Nasby <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-core(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks |
| Date: | 2006-12-04 06:44:01 |
| Message-ID: | C75C7EDB-65C0-4C5F-8981-9B2E94FBC004@decibel.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-hackers |
On Dec 1, 2006, at 10:46 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> If we
> do make it throw an error I'm afraid that we will break applications
> that aren't having a problem at the moment.
What about throwing a warning? Shouldn't break anything, but at least
then anyone who's experiencing this and has just gotten lucky so far
will have a better idea that it's happening.
As for possibly using the in-memory store of multiple CIDs affecting
a tuple, could that not work if that store contained enough
information to 'rollback' the lock to it's original state when
restoring to a savepoint? AFAIK other backends would only need to
know what the current lock being held was, they wouldn't need to know
the history of it themselves...
--
Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Devrim GUNDUZ | 2006-12-04 09:46:10 | 8.2.0 pdf |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-12-02 00:53:06 | Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-12-04 09:38:11 | Re: Facing a problem with SPI |
| Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2006-12-04 06:14:54 | Re: "Compacting" a relation |