| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | glue(at)pgexperts(dot)com |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [Glue] Deadlock bug |
| Date: | 2010-08-20 20:23:10 |
| Message-ID: | 4C6EE42E.8020300@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> In principle we don't need to sharelock the referencing row in either
> update in this example, since the original row version is still there.
> The problem is to know that, given the limited amount of information
> available when performing the second update.
Ah, ok. I get it now.
Now to figure out how a 2nd or greater update could know whether the row
was newly created or not ...
--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-08-20 20:27:22 | Re: git: uh-oh |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-08-20 20:19:17 | Re: Deadlock bug |