| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-core(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks |
| Date: | 2006-12-02 00:53:06 |
| Message-ID: | 5094.1165020786@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-hackers |
"Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 15:52 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hm? What does partitioning have to do with it?
> SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE is not supported for inheritance queries.
True, but that's a planner/executor issue not a question of the
fundamental representation of the state on-disk. (I have some ideas
about how to fix that one.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2006-12-04 06:44:01 | Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-12-01 22:14:49 | Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-12-02 01:20:00 | Re: Dynamic Tracing docs |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-12-02 00:44:15 | Re: Dynamic Tracing docs |