Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [GENERAL] Is Pg 7.0.x's Locking Mechanism BROKEN?

From: frank <f(dot)callaghan(at)ieee(dot)org>
To: Fabrice Scemama <fabrices(at)ximmo(dot)ftd(dot)fr>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is Pg 7.0.x's Locking Mechanism BROKEN?
Date: 2000-07-27 06:39:54
Message-ID: 397FD93A.969CC447@ieee.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-generalpgsql-hackers
Thanks Fabrice, that will help a lot.

In my applications the conflict was not a direct table conflict e.g.
USER1 locks Table1 record that references Table2 via foreign key with a
cascade update/delete enforced then
USER2 tried to lock Table2 for update on the referenced record - result both
users locked !

Is this the same scenario in your case ?
perhaps a simple test db could used to resolve if this is the issue !


Regards,
                Frank.



In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Zeugswetter Andreas SBDate: 2000-07-27 08:09:29
Subject: AW: AW: AW: AW: Vacuum only with 20% old tuples
Previous:From: Thomas LockhartDate: 2000-07-27 05:52:27
Subject: Re: Some questions on user defined types and functions.

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Mathieu ArnoldDate: 2000-07-27 08:16:09
Subject: Re: 4 billion record limit?
Previous:From: Thomas LockhartDate: 2000-07-27 05:52:27
Subject: Re: Some questions on user defined types and functions.

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group