Received: from localhost (maia-2.hub.org [200.46.204.187]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59F5E9FA1A7; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 20:53:15 -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 80720-08; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 20:53:06 -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 37CAD9F942F; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 20:53:11 -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 kB20r68J005095; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 19:53:06 -0500 (EST) To: "Simon Riggs" cc: "Heikki Linnakangas" , "Alvaro Herrera" , pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, pgsql-core@postgresql.org Subject: Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks In-reply-to: <1165011289.3778.924.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> <3240.1165006340@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1165011289.3778.924.camel@silverbirch.site> Comments: In-reply-to "Simon Riggs" message dated "Fri, 01 Dec 2006 22:14:49 +0000" Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 19:53:06 -0500 Message-ID: <5094.1165020786@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200612/49 X-Sequence-Number: 94530 "Simon Riggs" writes: > On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 15:52 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> Hm? What does partitioning have to do with it? > SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE is not supported for inheritance queries. True, but that's a planner/executor issue not a question of the fundamental representation of the state on-disk. (I have some ideas about how to fix that one.) regards, tom lane