From: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Stephan Szabo" <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Referential Integrity and SHARE locks |
Date: | 2007-02-02 20:19:44 |
Message-ID: | 1170447585.3645.81.camel@silverbirch.site |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2007-02-02 at 10:35 -0800, Stephan Szabo wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> > It sounds like if we don't put a SHARE lock on the referenced table then
> > we can end the transaction in an inconsistent state if the referenced
> > table has concurrent UPDATEs or DELETEs. BUT those operations do impose
> > locking rules back onto the referencing tables that would not be granted
> > until after any changes to the referencing table complete, whereupon
> > they would restrict or cascade. So an inconsistent state doesn't seem
> > possible to me.
>
> What locking back to the referencing table are you thinking about? The row
> locks are insufficient because that doesn't prevent an insert of a
> new row that matches the criteria previously locked against AFAIK.
Probably best to read the later posts; this one was at the beginning of
my thought train, so is slightly off track, as later posters remind me.
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-02-02 20:36:46 | Re: problem of geometric operator in v8.2.1 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-02-02 20:11:55 | Proposed adjustments in MaxTupleSize and toast thresholds |