From: | Melvin Davidson <melvin6925(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Non-overlapping updates blocking each other |
Date: | 2017-10-14 16:07:38 |
Message-ID: | CANu8FiwkupSxCdtZF4CRvtVEmGKHmbgqNN2POuh3hawF3War1w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater(at)gmx(dot)net>
wrote:
> Melvin Davidson schrieb am 14.10.2017 um 17:32:
>
>> More than likely, the optimizer has determined that a table scan is best,
>> in which case it will use a table lock.
>> That means one updates will be blocking each other.
>>
>
> Since when does Postgres lock the whole table during an update?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
>
>Since when does Postgres lock the whole table during an update?
When the optimizer thinks it needs to do a TABLE SCAN!
--
*Melvin Davidson*
I reserve the right to fantasize. Whether or not you
wish to share my fantasy is entirely up to you.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-10-14 16:32:33 | Re: Non-overlapping updates blocking each other |
Previous Message | Thomas Kellerer | 2017-10-14 16:01:27 | Re: Non-overlapping updates blocking each other |