Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks
Date: 2006-12-01 17:40:46
Message-ID: 534.1164994846@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-docs pgsql-hackers

Actually ... wait a minute. The proposed hack covers the case of
SELECT FOR SHARE followed by SELECT FOR UPDATE within a subtransaction.
But what about SELECT FOR SHARE followed by an actual UPDATE (or DELETE)?

We certainly don't want to mark the UPDATE/DELETE as having been carried
out by the upper transaction, but there's no way we can record the
UPDATE while still remembering the previous share-lock.

So I think I'm back to the position that we should throw an error here.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-docs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2006-12-01 17:46:31 Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-12-01 17:35:16 Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Timasmith 2006-12-01 17:43:57 postgresql roadmap for horizontal scalability?
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2006-12-01 17:36:26 Re: 8.2 Beta3-> RC1 upgrade