From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Wayne Cuddy <lists-pgsql@useunix.net>
Cc: PostgreSQL <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: locks and "select for update"
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 15:28:05 -0400
Message-ID: <17727.1346441285@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120831170554.GA32084@slacker.ja10629.home>
References: <20120831170554.GA32084@slacker.ja10629.home>
Wayne Cuddy <lists-pgsql@useunix.net> writes:
> The documentation about concurrency states that all the different types
> of locks are table locks even if the word row appears in the lock name.
Section 13.3.1, "Table-level Locks", states that all the lock types
discussed therein are table-level locks, even though some of them have
names containing the word ROW for historical reasons. I don't see how
you'd read it to imply that there are no finer-grained locks anywhere in
Postgres.
regards, tom lane
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-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, lists-pgsql@useunix.net
Subject: Re: locks and "select for update"
In-Reply-To: <17727.1346441285@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* 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