Re: In certain cases, can UPDATE transactions fail rather than block waiting for “FOR UPDATE lock”?

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: pk1u(dot)uu(at)gmail(dot)com
Cc: pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: In certain cases, can UPDATE transactions fail rather than block waiting for “FOR UPDATE lock”?
Date: 2018-07-21 06:36:55
Message-ID: 20180721063655.ykzx2poj3l53verg@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On 2018-Jul-20, Praveen Kumar wrote:

> Regarding UPDATEs on rows that are locked via "SELECT FOR UPDATE" in
> another transaction, I read the above as follows: other transactions that
> attempt UPDATE of these rows will be blocked until the current transaction
> ( which did "SELECT FOR UPDATE" for those rows ) ends, unless the columns
> in these rows being UPDATE'ed are those that don't have a unique index on
> them that can be used in a foreign key.
>
> Is this correct ?

No. What it means that if you UPDATE the columns-indexed-by-unique-idx
then the FOR UPDATE lock is acquired underneath. If your UPDATE
modifies some other column, then a FOR NO KEY UPDATE lock is acquired
instead. In both cases, concurrent transactions would be blocked rather
than erroring out.

--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Didier Carlier 2018-07-21 08:15:25 Finding out why parallel queries not avoided
Previous Message hamann.w 2018-07-21 04:23:07 Re: sql questions