Received: from localhost (maia-1.hub.org [200.46.204.191])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37FB89F9F0E;
	Fri,  1 Dec 2006 16:52:40 -0400 (AST)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.191]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 35889-06; Fri,  1 Dec 2006 16:52:25 -0400 (AST)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F16F9F9EED;
	Fri,  1 Dec 2006 16:52:24 -0400 (AST)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id kB1KqKXh003241;
	Fri, 1 Dec 2006 15:52:20 -0500 (EST)
To: "Simon Riggs" <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
cc: "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki@enterprisedb.com>,
	"Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre@commandprompt.com>,
	pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, pgsql-core@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks 
In-reply-to: <1165006016.3778.888.camel@silverbirch.site> 
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>
Comments: In-reply-to "Simon Riggs" <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
	message dated "Fri, 01 Dec 2006 20:46:56 +0000"
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 15:52:20 -0500
Message-ID: <3240.1165006340@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200612/43
X-Sequence-Number: 94524

"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?

			regards, tom lane