Re: [GENERAL] Does a row lock taken out in a CTE stay in place?
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления:
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [GENERAL] Does a row lock taken out in a CTE stay in place? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 1604.1499787945@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | [GENERAL] Does a row lock taken out in a CTE stay in place? (Seamus Abshere <seamus@abshere.net>) |
| Список | pgsql-general |
Seamus Abshere <seamus@abshere.net> writes:
> Given an update that uses CTEs like this:
> WITH
> lock_rows AS (
> SELECT 1 FROM tbl WHERE [...] FOR UPDATE
> )
> UPDATE [...]
> Will the rows in `tbl` remain locked until the UPDATE is finished?
Yes, locks are associated with a transaction not a statement or
sub-statement.
> Also, does it matter if `lock_rows` is referenced? (IIUC the query
> wouldn't be run if the CTE isn't referenced if it was for a SELECT, but
> since it's an UPDATE, it will be run anyway)
Yes, it does --- unreferenced SELECT CTEs are discarded. I thought maybe
there was an exception for FOR UPDATE, but a look at the code says
differently. In any case we would only lock rows the sub-select had
actually read, so if it's not called by the outer statement it would
still be a no-op.
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления:
Сайт использует файлы cookie для корректной работы и повышения удобства. Нажимая кнопку «Принять» или продолжая пользоваться сайтом, вы соглашаетесь на их использование в соответствии с Политикой в отношении обработки cookie ООО «ППГ», в том числе на передачу данных из файлов cookie сторонним статистическим и рекламным службам. Вы можете управлять настройками cookie через параметры вашего браузера