Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
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 20:52:20
Message-ID: 3240.1165006340@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-docs pgsql-hackers

"Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> The functionality in this area isn't yet complete anyway; we still have
> locking in the partitioned table case to consider.

Hm? What does partitioning have to do with it?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-docs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-12-01 20:55:30 Re: [CORE] FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2006-12-01 20:46:56 Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-12-01 20:55:30 Re: [CORE] FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2006-12-01 20:46:56 Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks