| From: | Michael Paesold <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks |
| Date: | 2006-12-01 07:16:41 |
| Message-ID: | [email protected] |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm tempted to just error out in this scenario rather than allow the
> lock upgrade. Thoughts?
Although this seems to be a technically hard problem, the above sentence
does not sound like the PostgreSQL way to solve problems (rather like
MySQL). ;-)
Now seriously, isn't this a perfectly feasible scenario? E.g. the outer
transaction acquires a shared lock because of foreign key constraints, and
the sub transaction later wants to update that row?
Best Regards
Michael Paesold
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-12-01 07:46:59 | Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks |
| Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2006-12-01 00:30:31 | Re: DTrace docs, Open Items and Performance |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-12-01 07:46:59 | Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks |
| Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2006-12-01 00:40:48 | Re: [GENERAL] Allowing SYSDATE to Work |