Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4B42475B85 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 2002 16:03:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from bob.samurai.com (bob.samurai.com [205.207.28.75]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26B2F475A3F for ; Mon, 11 Nov 2002 16:03:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from tokyo.samurai.com (DU150.N224.ResNet.QueensU.CA [130.15.224.150]) by bob.samurai.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6C201D5D for ; Mon, 11 Nov 2002 16:02:59 -0500 (EST) To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org Subject: concurrency control docs error From: Neil Conway Date: 11 Nov 2002 16:02:51 -0500 Message-ID: <87bs4vyg3o.fsf@mailbox.samurai.com> Lines: 18 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517 X-Archive-Number: 200211/16 X-Sequence-Number: 1540 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? Cheers, Neil -- Neil Conway || PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC