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

Re: [HACKERS] Re: possible row locking bug in 7.0.3 & 7.1

From: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>
Cc: Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: possible row locking bug in 7.0.3 & 7.1
Date: 2001-03-30 10:15:22
Message-ID: 3AC45CBA.8CDC3213@tpf.co.jp (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-sql
"Mikheev, Vadim" wrote:
> 
> > > >> I assume this is not possible in 7.1?
> > > >
> > > >Just looked in heapam.c - I can fix it in two hours.
> > > >The question is - should we do this now?
> > > >Comments?
> > >
> > > It's a bug; how confident are you of the fix?
> 
> 95% -:)
> 
> > I doubt if it's a bug of SELECT. Well what
> > 'concurrent UPDATE then SELECT FOR UPDATE +
> > SELECT' return ?
> 
> I'm going to add additional check to heapgettup and
> heap_fetch:
>

SELECT seems to be able to return a different result
from that of preceding SELECT FOR UPDATE even after
applying your change.
SELECT doesn't seem guilty but the result is far 
from intuitive.
It seems impossoble for all queires inside such
a function to use a common snapshot.

regards,
Hiroshi Inoue

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Mathijs BrandsDate: 2001-03-30 10:17:01
Subject: Re: Re: [PORTS] pgmonitor and Solaris
Previous:From: Pete FormanDate: 2001-03-30 10:07:25
Subject: Re: Re: [PORTS] pgmonitor and Solaris

pgsql-sql by date

Next:From: Koen AntonissenDate: 2001-03-30 11:52:28
Subject: Max Size of a text field
Previous:From: Koen AntonissenDate: 2001-03-30 09:58:16
Subject: Max Size of a text field

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