Re: out-of-order caution

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: out-of-order caution
Date: 2011-10-27 19:40:22
Message-ID: 4459.1319744422@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> (2) They *can* get a serialization failure involving just two
> transactions: a read and a write.

Only if you ignore the difference between SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE and
plain SELECT. I think calling the former a "read" is a conceptual error
to start with. It has the same locking and synchronization behavior as
a write.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message fschmidt 2011-10-27 19:43:06 portal with hold
Previous Message Tom Lane 2011-10-27 19:30:42 Re: out-of-order caution