Re: [HACKERS] please?

From: Pablo Funes <pablo(at)cs(dot)brandeis(dot)edu>
To: maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us (Bruce Momjian)
Cc: theo(at)flame(dot)co(dot)za, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] please?
Date: 1999-05-31 19:27:58
Message-ID: 199905311927.PAA01173@mancha.cs.brandeis.edu
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> > It allows me to read uncommited records without blocking.
>
> Yes, but that does not solve his problem. He wants a single lock, and
> wants to test the lock, and immediately return if the lock fails.
>

If you know the read was dirty, you know there was somebody else
locking/writing the table or record, it's locked, you failed to lock.

Of course you should be able to aquire the lock in the same atomic
operation...

...Pablo

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 1999-05-31 19:39:54 Re: s_lock_stuck (was Problems w/ LO)
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 1999-05-31 19:27:25 Re: [HACKERS] please?