From: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Message-Id: <200211120445.gAC4jeo29705@candle.pha.pa.us>
Subject: Re: concurrency control docs error
In-Reply-To: <87bs4vyg3o.fsf@mailbox.samurai.com>
To: Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 23:45:40 -0500 (EST)
Cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

Neil Conway wrote:
> The docs on concurrency control & deadlocks (User's Guide, 9.3.3, CVS
> docs) state the following:
> 
>   Use of explicit locking can cause deadlocks, wherein two (or more)
>   transactions each hold locks that the other wants.
> 
> This isn't completely true, as deadlocks can occur in applications
> that don't use explicit 'LOCK' statements.
> 
> Can someone suggest a better way to phrase the intent of that
> statement?

But it isn't saying there aren't other deadlock cases, just that
explicit locks tend to cause them more frequently.  You can add "Often"
to the front of the sentence.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073