Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 22:22:18 +0100
From: Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Erik Rijkers <er@xs4all.nl>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@mail.com>,
	pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: foreign key locks
Message-ID: <20130110212218.GE4329@awork2.anarazel.de>
References: <20121129152326.69330@gmx.com>
	<20121129160220.GA4942@alvh.no-ip.org>
	<20121129161654.GB4942@alvh.no-ip.org>
	<b1a78c715f9195e6f96546c8e723afd8.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl>
	<20121228204847.GD4150@alvh.no-ip.org>
	<20130110210040.GB4110@alvh.no-ip.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20130110210040.GB4110@alvh.no-ip.org>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

On 2013-01-10 18:00:40 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Here's version 28 of this patch.  The only substantive change here from
> v26 is that I've made GetTupleForTrigger() use either LockTupleExclusive
> or LockTupleNoKeyExclusive, depending on whether the key columns are
> being modified by the update.  This needs to go through EvalPlanQual, so
> that function is now getting the lock mode as a parameter instead of
> hardcoded LockTupleExclusive.  (All other users of GetTupleForTrigger
> still use LockTupleExclusive, so there's no change for anybody other
> than FOR EACH ROW BEFORE UPDATE triggers).

Is that enough in case of a originally non-key update in read committed
mode that turns into a key update due to a concurrent key update?

Greetings,

Andres Freund

-- 
 Andres Freund	                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers