Re: foreign key locks

Noah Misch wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 05:22:10PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:

> > Not really sure about the proposed syntax, but yes clearly we need some
> > other syntax to mean "FOR NON KEY UPDATE". I would rather keep FOR
> > UPDATE to mean what I currently call FOR KEY UPDATE. More proposals for
> > the other (weaker) lock level welcome (but if you love FOR NON KEY
> > UPDATE, please chime in too)
>
> Agree on having "FOR UPDATE" without any "FOR KEY UPDATE" synonym. For the
> weaker lock, I mildly preferred the proposal of "FOR NO KEY UPDATE". NON KEY
> captures the idea better in English, but NO is close enough and already part
> of the SQL lexicon.

This is the proposal I like best; however there is an asymmetry, because
the locking options now are

FOR KEY SHARE
FOR SHARE
FOR NO KEY UPDATE
FOR UPDATE

I used to have comments such as

/* Currently, SELECT ... FOR [KEY] UPDATE/SHARE requires UPDATE privileges */
#define ACL_SELECT_FOR_UPDATE ACL_UPDATE

but now they are slightly incorrect because the NO is not illustrated.
I guess I could use SELECT ... FOR [NO KEY] UPDATE/SHARE but this leaves
out the "FOR KEY SHARE" case (and can be thought to introduce a FOR NO
KEY SHARE case). And getting much more verbose than that is probably
not warranted. In some places I would like the use a phrase like "the
locking clause", but I'm not sure that it's clear enough.

--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services