| From: | "Andy Kriger" <akriger(at)greaterthanone(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Pgsql-General" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: lock table question |
| Date: | 2002-12-30 20:48:38 |
| Message-ID: | OJEFIHHAALOBKKJEOMBDGEMPCNAA.akriger@greaterthanone.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
It doesn't lock the row from being read. I want to make sure the row cannot
be read until I have done my read and updated if necessary. LOCK TABLE does
that but also prevents other rows from being read which is a bit overzealous
for my taste (the app is small so it's probably not a big deal in this case,
but I can see in future possibilities how it would be).
-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
[mailto:pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org]On Behalf Of Doug McNaught
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 15:18
To: Andy Kriger
Cc: Pgsql-General
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] lock table question
"Andy Kriger" <akriger(at)greaterthanone(dot)com> writes:
> I have an inventory table. I need to be able to lock a row from being
> read/written while I: check the quantity value; modify it if necessary.
From
> my experiments, it appears I can only do this with LOCK TABLE. Since this
> locks the whole table and not just the individual row, I'm guessing this
> would create quite a bottleneck if our application were larger. I'm also
> guessing that there's a better way to approach this probably common need.
Does SELECT ... FOR UPDATE not do what you want?
-Doug
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-12-30 21:17:08 | Re: lock table question |
| Previous Message | Medi Montaseri | 2002-12-30 20:31:45 | Re: pg and transactions |