Re: UserLock oddity with Limit
От | Rod Taylor |
---|---|
Тема | Re: UserLock oddity with Limit |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 00d201c0d7d7$57beb3b0$2205010a@jester обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | UserLock oddity with Limit ("Rod Taylor" <rbt@barchord.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
As a general rule I don't. But I'm having a hard time trying to find out if there is a lock on a given item without attempting to lock it. Seems to work that way with all locks but most delay until it can obtain it. Userlocks don't wait. -- Rod Taylor BarChord Entertainment Inc. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> To: "Rod Taylor" <rbt@barchord.com> Cc: "Hackers List" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 11:35 AM Subject: Re: [HACKERS] UserLock oddity with Limit > "Rod Taylor" <rbt@barchord.com> writes: > > Fiddling with userlock stuff for the purposes of setting up an action > > queue. Having the lock in the where clause causes the lock code to > > actually lock 2 rows, not just the one that is being returned. > > A WHERE clause should *never* contain function calls with side effects. > I do not regard this behavior as a bug. Put the function call in the > SELECT's output list if you want to know exactly which rows it is > evaluated at. > > regards, tom lane >
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: