From: | Herouth Maoz <herouth(at)oumail(dot)openu(dot)ac(dot)il> |
---|---|
To: | efte(at)fornax(dot)hu, pgsql-sql(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [SQL] transaction-lock? |
Date: | 1999-03-24 12:42:30 |
Message-ID: | l03110707b31e8e019ea2@[147.233.150.135] |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-sql |
At 20:06 +0200 on 23/03/1999, Forgacs Tamas wrote:
>
> I am a novice pgsql user. I used Oracle, but it is unbelievable what
> bugs they have...
>
> So, is it possible, that if one transaction is pending on for eg. 'test'
> table in one psql session, then in another session this 'test' table is
> locked until the transaction is not finished on another????
>
> I have been tested a lot of ways, but the most easier problem is the
> next:
> - there is a table named 'test', with only 1 field.
> - opening a psql session on tty1, and on tty2 into the same database
>
> - on tty1 'begin' a transaction
> - on tty1 'insert' 1 row into the 'test' table
> - on tty2 'select' from the 'test' table
> => on the tty2 there is no answer until on the tty1 is the
> transaction not finished
Yes, that's the documented behaviour. Oracle has bugs, but Postgres will
have a better locking resolution only starting 6.5. At the moment it locks
on tables.
Herouth
--
Herouth Maoz, Internet developer.
Open University of Israel - Telem project
http://telem.openu.ac.il/~herutma
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rich Shepard | 1999-03-24 13:55:37 | Re: [SQL] Use of 'default TEXT now()' |
Previous Message | Anatoly K. Lasareff | 1999-03-24 07:10:42 | Re: [SQL] DEFAULT TEXT 'now' |