From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)sectorbase(dot)com>, PostgreSQL HACKERS <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Wrong FOR UPDATE lock type |
Date: | 2000-12-04 21:51:52 |
Message-ID: | 7039.975966712@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> Tom,
> IIRC the "Deadlock risk" debug message is from you. I think
> it must get a little smarter. IMHO an application that want's
> to UPDATE something in a transaction but must SELECT the
> row(s) first to do it's own calculation on them, should use
> SELECT FOR UPDATE. Is that debug output really appropriate in
> this case (it raises from RowShareLock to RowExclusiveLock
> because of the UPDATE of the previous FOR UPDATE selected
> row)?
Well, there is a theoretical chance of deadlock --- not against other
transactions doing the same thing, since RowShareLock and
RowExclusiveLock don't conflict, but you could construct deadlock
scenarios involving other transactions that grab ShareLock or
ShareRowExclusiveLock. So I don't think it's appropriate for the
"deadlock risk" check to ignore RowShareLock->RowExclusiveLock
upgrades.
But I'm not sure the check should be enabled in production releases
anyway. I just put it in as a quick and dirty debug check. Perhaps
it should be under an #ifdef that's not enabled by default.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dan Lyke | 2000-12-04 22:30:31 | Re: Using Threads? |
Previous Message | Alex Perel | 2000-12-04 21:49:27 | INSERT INTO ... SELECT problem |