| From: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-patches(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposed patch for xact-vs-multixact bugs |
| Date: | 2006-11-18 12:58:51 |
| Message-ID: | 1163854731.27956.784.camel@silverbirch.site |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 20:23 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> We should treat
> exclusive lock held under any of the current backend's subtransactions
> as not to be overridden.
I can't find any clear discussion of this within the docs. I guess if
there were some clear statements on this it would have been uncovered
earlier.
We should say something like "Once a lock has been taken it will be held
until the end of the transaction. Locks obtained after a SAVEPOINT (i.e.
within a subtransaction) will continue to be held even after a RELEASE
SAVEPOINT". Does this also apply if we do a ROLLBACK TO SAVEPOINT?
I'll do some docs for the Concurrency Control section.
Has the same thinking been applied to table level locks also?
LOCK TABLE has same issue maybe?
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Neil Conway | 2006-11-19 02:44:55 | Transaction start in pg_stat_activity |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-11-18 04:53:19 | Re: Brazilian FAQ update |