Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: improving foreign key locks

From: Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>
To: Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: improving foreign key locks
Date: 2010-12-01 23:59:11
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Dec 1, 2010, at 11:09 AM, Florian Pflug wrote:
> An UPDATE on such a SHARE locked row would be allowed despite the lock if it only changed columns not mentioned by any unique index.

On a side-note, by "changed columns" do you mean the column appeared in the UPDATE statement, or the data actually changed? I suspect the former might be easier to implement, but it's really going to fsck with some applications (Rails is one example that comes to mind).
Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect                   jim(at)nasby(dot)net
512.569.9461 (cell)               

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Jim NasbyDate: 2010-12-02 00:18:25
Subject: Re: FK's to refer to rows in inheritance child
Previous:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2010-12-01 23:48:53
Subject: Re: V3: Idle in transaction cancellation

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group