> > You were talking about the "select only" case (and no for update eighter).
> > I think that select statements need a shared lock for the duration of their
> > execution only.
> You seem to think that locks on individual tuples conflict with
> table-wide locks.
Yes, very much so. Any other way would be subject to the same quirks
you would like to avoid, no ?
> AFAIK that's not true.
well, imho room for improvement.
> The only way to prevent
> another xact from gaining AccessExclusiveLock on a table is to be
> holding some lock *on the table*.
Yes, and holding a row exclusive lock must imho at least grab a shared
table lock (to avoid several problems, like missing an index update,
inserting a null into a newly added not null column ...).
Alternately the table exclusive lock could honour row locks
(probably not possible, since we don't track those do we ?).
> As for your claim that read-only xacts don't need to worry about
> preventing schema updates, what of adding/deleting ON SELECT rules?
Well, depends on what that rule does, you mean a new rule ?
Ad hoc I don't see a problem based on the idea that all modification gets
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2000-10-23 15:01:14|
|Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/src/pl/plpgsql/test (runtest triggers.sql
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2000-10-23 14:59:47|
|Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/src/pl/plpgsql/test (runtest triggers.sql mklang.sql) |