Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks

#1

On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 02:46 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:

Quote:

Michael Paesold <mpaesold (AT) gmx (DOT) at> writes:
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?

Yeah, it's not implausible. But the only way I can see to implement
that is to upgrade the outer xact's shared lock to exclusive, and that
doesn't seem real cool either.

If it's a plausible enough sequence of events, is it worth adding a note
to the "migration" section of the release notes?

Regards,
Jeff Davis

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at

http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks

mailing.database.pgsql-docs mailing.database.pgsql-docs

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks - 12-01-2006 , 12:43 PM