From: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <pgsql-core(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks |
Date: | 2006-12-01 20:46:56 |
Message-ID: | 1165006016.3778.888.camel@silverbirch.site |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 13:46 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm also realizing that a fix along the throw-an-error line is
> nontrivial, eg, HeapTupleSatisfiesUpdate would need another return code.
Yes, thats starting to get hairy. The fix could easily break something
else in another corner of MVCC.
> So at this point we are facing three options:
> - throw in a large and poorly tested "fix" at the last moment;
> - postpone 8.2 until we can think of a real fix, which might
> be a major undertaking;
> - ship 8.2 with the same behavior 8.0 and 8.1 had.
> None of these are very attractive, but I'm starting to think the last
> is the least bad.
The functionality in this area isn't yet complete anyway; we still have
locking in the partitioned table case to consider. It's not that bad
just to leave it as is. So last option gets my vote.
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-12-01 20:52:20 | Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks |
Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2006-12-01 20:11:59 | Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-12-01 20:52:20 | Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks |
Previous Message | Zdenek Kotala | 2006-12-01 20:20:21 | Re: Configuring BLCKSZ and XLOGSEGSZ (in 8.3) |