From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Michael Paesold <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks |
Date: | 2006-12-01 18:43:01 |
Message-ID: | 1164998581.25371.13.camel@dogma.v10.wvs |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 02:46 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paesold <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at> writes:
> > Now seriously, isn't this a perfectly feasible scenario? E.g. the outer
> > transaction acquires a shared lock because of foreign key constraints, and
> > the sub transaction later wants to update that row?
>
> Yeah, it's not implausible. But the only way I can see to implement
> that is to upgrade the outer xact's shared lock to exclusive, and that
> doesn't seem real cool either.
>
If it's a plausible enough sequence of events, is it worth adding a note
to the "migration" section of the release notes?
Regards,
Jeff Davis
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-12-01 18:46:57 | Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-12-01 17:58:31 | Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-12-01 18:46:57 | Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-12-01 17:58:31 | Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks |