On Dec 1, 2010, at 11:09 AM, Florian Pflug wrote:
> An UPDATE on such a SHARE locked row would be allowed despite the lock if it only changed columns not mentioned by any unique index.
On a side-note, by "changed columns" do you mean the column appeared in the UPDATE statement, or the data actually changed? I suspect the former might be easier to implement, but it's really going to fsck with some applications (Rails is one example that comes to mind).
Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect jim(at)nasby(dot)net
512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Jim Nasby||Date: 2010-12-02 00:18:25|
|Subject: Re: FK's to refer to rows in inheritance child|
|Previous:||From: Kevin Grittner||Date: 2010-12-01 23:48:53|
|Subject: Re: V3: Idle in transaction cancellation|