| From: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <pgsql-core(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks |
| Date: | 2006-12-01 22:14:49 |
| Message-ID: | 1165011289.3778.924.camel@silverbirch.site |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 15:52 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > The functionality in this area isn't yet complete anyway; we still have
> > locking in the partitioned table case to consider.
>
> Hm? What does partitioning have to do with it?
SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE is not supported for inheritance queries.
My point was that the implementation of row locking is not yet complete,
so the slight wrinkle around lock upgrading is not a solitary eyesore.
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-12-02 00:53:06 | Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-12-01 20:55:30 | Re: [CORE] FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-12-01 23:04:05 | Dynamic Tracing docs |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-12-01 20:55:30 | Re: [CORE] FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks |