| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks |
| Date: | 2006-12-01 11:37:11 |
| Message-ID: | 20061201113711.GC30441@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs wrote:
> ISTM that multitrans could be used here. Two xids, one xmax.
Hmm, yeah, this seems a reasonable suggestion. The problem is that we
don't have a mechanism today for saying "this Xid holds a shared lock,
this one holds an exclusive lock". So code-wise it wouldn't be simple
to do. It's a single bit per Xid, but I don't see where to store such a
thing.
I'm not sure we can use the simple "raise an ERROR" answer though,
because for users that would be a regression.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2006-12-01 12:02:12 | Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-12-01 08:42:23 | Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2006-12-01 12:02:12 | Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2006-12-01 11:06:34 | Re: Storing session-local data |