From: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>
Cc: Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@mail.com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: foreign key locks
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 17:01:29 -0400
Message-ID: <20121031210129.GD29247@tornado.leadboat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20121031202209.GF23139@alvh.no-ip.org>
References: <20121029121833.306930@gmx.com>
<20121031193536.GA1651@tornado.leadboat.com>
<CA+U5nMKK8oOcoxTtMO9ZgT6YYGYH2RQoDt15RXXyMh+Sp0tNmA@mail.gmail.com>
<20121031202209.GF23139@alvh.no-ip.org>
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 05:22:10PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On 31 October 2012 19:35, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote:
> > > +1. I had not considered this angle during previous reviews, but I agree with
> > > Andres's position. Since this patch does not strengthen the strongest tuple
> > > lock relative to its PostgreSQL 9.2 counterpart, that lock type should
> > > continue to use the syntax "FOR UPDATE". It will come to mean "the lock type
> > > sufficient for all possible UPDATEs of the row".
>
> Yeah, I agree with this too.
>
> > So we have syntax
> >
> > FOR NON KEY UPDATE
> > FOR KEY UPDATE
> >
> > KEY is the default, so FOR UPDATE is a synonym of FOR KEY UPDATE
>
> Not really sure about the proposed syntax, but yes clearly we need some
> other syntax to mean "FOR NON KEY UPDATE". I would rather keep FOR
> UPDATE to mean what I currently call FOR KEY UPDATE. More proposals for
> the other (weaker) lock level welcome (but if you love FOR NON KEY
> UPDATE, please chime in too)
Agree on having "FOR UPDATE" without any "FOR KEY UPDATE" synonym. For the
weaker lock, I mildly preferred the proposal of "FOR NO KEY UPDATE". NON KEY
captures the idea better in English, but NO is close enough and already part
of the SQL lexicon.
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: noah@leadboat.com, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, simon@2ndQuadrant.com, kgrittn@mail.com, andres@2ndquadrant.com
Subject: Re: foreign key locks
In-Reply-To: <20121031210129.GD29247@tornado.leadboat.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox