| From: | frank <f(dot)callaghan(at)ieee(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fabrice Scemama <fabrices(at)ximmo(dot)ftd(dot)fr>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] Is Pg 7.0.x's Locking Mechanism BROKEN? |
| Date: | 2000-07-27 06:39:54 |
| Message-ID: | 397FD93A.969CC447@ieee.org |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Thanks Fabrice, that will help a lot.
In my applications the conflict was not a direct table conflict e.g.
USER1 locks Table1 record that references Table2 via foreign key with a
cascade update/delete enforced then
USER2 tried to lock Table2 for update on the referenced record - result both
users locked !
Is this the same scenario in your case ?
perhaps a simple test db could used to resolve if this is the issue !
Regards,
Frank.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mathieu Arnold | 2000-07-27 08:16:09 | Re: 4 billion record limit? |
| Previous Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2000-07-27 05:52:27 | Re: Some questions on user defined types and functions. |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SB | 2000-07-27 08:09:29 | AW: AW: AW: AW: Vacuum only with 20% old tuples |
| Previous Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2000-07-27 05:52:27 | Re: Some questions on user defined types and functions. |