Received: from localhost (maia-2.hub.org [200.46.204.187])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 852E69FA12B;
	Fri,  1 Dec 2006 18:15:18 -0400 (AST)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.187]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 51209-08; Fri,  1 Dec 2006 18:15:10 -0400 (AST)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4
Received: from mail01.enterprisedb.com (mail01.enterprisedb.com
 [63.246.7.168])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DA3F9F9EED;
	Fri,  1 Dec 2006 18:15:13 -0400 (AST)
thread-index: AccVli3U++lk7PfbSIG3aMlWtib3Ng==
Received: from [192.168.0.20] ([84.12.196.220]) by mail01.enterprisedb.com
	with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 1 Dec 2006 17:15:15 -0500
Subject: Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks
Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
Importance: normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.2757
From: "Simon Riggs" <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki@enterprisedb.com>,
	"Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre@commandprompt.com>,
	<pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, <pgsql-core@postgresql.org>
In-Reply-To: <3240.1165006340@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <1144.1164924373@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<1164962544.3778.847.camel@silverbirch.site>
	<20061201113711.GC30441@alvh.no-ip.org>
	<15834.1164985926@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<45705E9C.2060003@enterprisedb.com> <534.1164994846@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<45706A77.8030503@enterprisedb.com> <1128.1164998817@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<1165006016.3778.888.camel@silverbirch.site>
	<3240.1165006340@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 22:14:49 +0000
Message-ID: <1165011289.3778.924.camel@silverbirch.site>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.0 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Dec 2006 22:15:15.0906 (UTC)
	FILETIME=[2DAEDA20:01C71596]
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200612/45
X-Sequence-Number: 94526

On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 15:52 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Simon Riggs" <simon@2ndquadrant.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?

SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE is not supported for inheritance queries.

My point was that the implementation of row locking is not yet complete,
so the slight wrinkle around lock upgrading is not a solitary eyesore.

-- 
  Simon Riggs             
  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com