| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-core(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [CORE] FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks |
| Date: | 2006-12-01 20:55:30 |
| Message-ID: | 3319.1165006530@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-hackers |
"Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> imo, the most likely scenario would be a begin/exception/end block in
> pg/sql. i would venture to guess that very little true savepointing
> happens in practice. maybe add a little note of caution pg/sql error
> handling documentation?
I mentioned exception blocks as a risk factor, but I think the right
place to document it is under FOR UPDATE/SHARE:
http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/ref/select.sgml.diff?r1=1.93;r2=1.94
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-12-01 22:14:49 | Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-12-01 20:52:20 | Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-12-01 22:14:49 | Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-12-01 20:52:20 | Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks |