Re: Partitioning/inherited tables vs FKs

From: Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi>
To: Nicolas Barbier <nicolas(dot)barbier(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dmitry Fefelov <fozzy(at)ac-sw(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Sándor Miglécz <sandor(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Hans-Juergen Schoenig <hs(at)cybertec(dot)at>
Subject: Re: Partitioning/inherited tables vs FKs
Date: 2010-05-11 13:19:10
Message-ID: 4BE9594E.10106@cs.helsinki.fi
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 5/11/10 4:11 PM +0300, I wrote:
> I took the "SELECT ... FOR SHARE" suggestion in a more general way,
> suggesting the use of row-level locks. T2 should be holding an
> exclusive row-level lock (SELECT ... FOR UPDATE) when checking for
> references.

Hmm. Right, that transaction wouldn't see the rows in a serializable
transaction so this doesn't solve the problem.

Regards,
Marko Tiikkaja

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2010-05-11 13:50:04 Re: List traffic
Previous Message Marko Tiikkaja 2010-05-11 13:11:42 Re: Partitioning/inherited tables vs FKs