| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi>, Boxuan Zhai <bxzhai2010(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Re: new patch of MERGE (merge_204) & a question about duplicated ctid |
| Date: | 2011-01-03 16:35:18 |
| Message-ID: | 4D21FAC6.3020502@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 03.01.2011 18:29, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-01-03 at 18:08 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>
>> It works in read committed mode, because you acquire a new snapshot
>> after the LOCK TABLE, and anyone else who modified the table must commit
>> before the lock is granted. In serializable mode you get a serialization
>> error.
>
> If its not safe without this
>
> LOCK TABLE ... IN SHARE ROW EXCLUSIVE MODE
>
> then we should do that automatically, and document that.
No we should not. The SQL standard doesn't require that, and it would
unnecessarily restrict concurrent updates on unrelated rows in the table.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Florian Pflug | 2011-01-03 16:36:25 | Re: Re: new patch of MERGE (merge_204) & a question about duplicated ctid |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2011-01-03 16:29:46 | Re: Scanning pg_tablespace from walsender |