| From: | Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: improving foreign key locks |
| Date: | 2010-12-01 23:59:11 |
| Message-ID: | 5DF35D5E-53B4-4D12-8652-8FA3823567D1@nasby.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2010-12-02 00:18:25 | Re: FK's to refer to rows in inheritance child |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-12-01 23:48:53 | Re: V3: Idle in transaction cancellation |