Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Michael Paesold
Тема Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks
Дата
Msg-id 456FD6D9.9020102@gmx.at
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:> I'm tempted to just error out in this scenario rather than allow the> lock upgrade.  Thoughts?

Although this seems to be a technically hard problem, the above sentence 
does not sound like the PostgreSQL way to solve problems (rather like 
MySQL). ;-)

Now seriously, isn't this a perfectly feasible scenario? E.g. the outer 
transaction acquires a shared lock because of foreign key constraints, and 
the sub transaction later wants to update that row?

Best Regards
Michael Paesold


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Jim Nasby
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [GENERAL] Allowing SYSDATE to Work
Следующее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks