| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Greg Stark <greg(dot)stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: User-facing aspects of serializable transactions |
| Date: | 2009-05-28 17:07:31 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f070905281007g16a6a4cfub999f63eb441a7fd@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> What's hard about that? INSERTs are the hard case, because the rows
>> you care about don't exist yet. SELECT, UPDATE, and DELETE are easy
>> by comparison; you can lock the actual rows at issue. Unless I'm
>> confused?
>
> UPDATE isn't really any easier than INSERT: the update might cause
> the row to satisfy someone else's search condition that it didn't
> previously satisfy.
Good point.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-05-28 17:40:25 | Re: PostgreSQL Developer meeting minutes up |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2009-05-28 17:03:38 | Re: PostgreSQL Developer meeting minutes up |