Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: improving foreign key locks

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 (view raw or flat)
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



In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Jim NasbyDate: 2010-12-02 00:18:25
Subject: Re: FK's to refer to rows in inheritance child
Previous:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2010-12-01 23:48:53
Subject: Re: V3: Idle in transaction cancellation

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group