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

Re: User-facing aspects of serializable transactions

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Greg Stark <greg(dot)stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
Subject: Re: User-facing aspects of serializable transactions
Date: 2009-05-28 15:41:53
Message-ID: 603c8f070905280841t289ba506n4a6369e3407dc2b@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> On Thursday 28 May 2009 15:24:59 Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> I don't think you need that for predicate locking. To determine if e.g
>> an INSERT and a SELECT conflict, you need to determine if the INSERTed
>> tuple matches the predicate in the SELECT. No need to deduce anything
>> between two predicates, but between a tuple and a predicate.
>
> That might the easy part.  The hard part is determining whether a SELECT and
> an UPDATE conflict.

What's hard about that?  INSERTs are the hard case, because the rows
you care about don't exist yet.  SELECT, UPDATE, and DELETE are easy
by comparison; you can lock the actual rows at issue.  Unless I'm
confused?

...Robert

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-05-28 15:42:03
Subject: Re: Compiler warning cleanup - unitilized const variables, pointer type mismatch
Previous:From: Markus WannerDate: 2009-05-28 15:40:15
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Developer meeting minutes up

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