From: | Alban Hertroys <haramrae(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | postforabhishek(at)gmail(dot)com |
Cc: | Postgres General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Want to acquire lock on tables where primary of one table is foreign key on othere |
Date: | 2018-10-11 14:56:38 |
Message-ID: | CAF-3MvNXowd7rrRNqF3oaHdz+J1W5zrm8yR+3LGx5Fa14s+oQw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-general |
On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 at 16:38, Abhishek Tripathi
<postforabhishek(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Actually I have acquired a "Select for Update" on a table whose id is refrence as a foreign key on another table So I want those table won't update until there is lock. Is it possible? Becuase postgres is acquiring lock but AccessShare Lock which allow to write on those table How I restrict this.
For what purpose do you want that? What is inadequate about the lock
that Postgres acquires?
Table locks are very rarely what you want, as it blocks all concurrent
access to the entire table, while that is only necessary for a few
rarely used corner cases; a foreign key update is not among those.
--
If you can't see the forest for the trees,
Cut the trees and you'll see there is no forest.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-10-11 22:09:02 | Re: BUG #15425: DETACH/ATTACH PARTITION bug |
Previous Message | Abhishek Tripathi | 2018-10-11 09:49:13 | Fwd: Want to acquire lock on tables where primary of one table is foreign key on othere |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2018-10-11 15:36:06 | Re: Advice on logging strategy |
Previous Message | Bryce Pepper | 2018-10-11 14:53:58 | RE: RHEL 7 (systemd) reboot |