public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedROW SHARE/SELECT ... FOR UPDATE + foreign keys
2+ messages / 2 participants
[nested] [flat]
* ROW SHARE/SELECT ... FOR UPDATE + foreign keys
@ 2005-07-21 19:47 Thomas F. O'Connell <[email protected]>
2005-07-22 05:13 ` Re: ROW SHARE/SELECT ... FOR UPDATE + foreign keys Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Thomas F. O'Connell @ 2005-07-21 19:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-docs
What would people think of adding a note to the ROW SHARE section of
Table-Level Locks remarking on the fact that referential integrity
checks expressed through foreign keys do SELECT ... FOR UPDATES.
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.0/static/explicit-
locking.html#LOCKING-TABLES
It was somewhat challenging today to try to track down a pervasive
locking issue related to a table not directly referenced in a stored
procedure but that was referenced by a key in a table that was being
updated.
I'm not sure how this changes with the new shared row locking
implementation in 8.1...
--
Thomas F. O'Connell
Co-Founder, Information Architect
Sitening, LLC
Strategic Open Source: Open Your i™
http://www.sitening.com/
110 30th Avenue North, Suite 6
Nashville, TN 37203-6320
615-260-0005
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: ROW SHARE/SELECT ... FOR UPDATE + foreign keys
2005-07-21 19:47 ROW SHARE/SELECT ... FOR UPDATE + foreign keys Thomas F. O'Connell <[email protected]>
@ 2005-07-22 05:13 ` Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Bruce Momjian @ 2005-07-22 05:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thomas F. O'Connell <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-docs
Thomas F. O'Connell wrote:
> What would people think of adding a note to the ROW SHARE section of
> Table-Level Locks remarking on the fact that referential integrity
> checks expressed through foreign keys do SELECT ... FOR UPDATES.
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.0/static/explicit-
> locking.html#LOCKING-TABLES
>
> It was somewhat challenging today to try to track down a pervasive
> locking issue related to a table not directly referenced in a stored
> procedure but that was referenced by a key in a table that was being
> updated.
>
> I'm not sure how this changes with the new shared row locking
> implementation in 8.1...
>
8.1 will use _shared_ row locks for such cases.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
[email protected] | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2005-07-22 05:13 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2005-07-21 19:47 ROW SHARE/SELECT ... FOR UPDATE + foreign keys Thomas F. O'Connell <[email protected]>
2005-07-22 05:13 ` Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox