Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1T7Wsy-000276-4e for pgsql-sql@postgresql.org; Fri, 31 Aug 2012 19:28:08 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1T7Wsw-0001q2-CW for pgsql-sql@postgresql.org; Fri, 31 Aug 2012 19:28:07 +0000 Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q7VJS5CX017728; Fri, 31 Aug 2012 15:28:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Tom Lane To: Wayne Cuddy cc: PostgreSQL Subject: Re: locks and "select for update" In-reply-to: <20120831170554.GA32084@slacker.ja10629.home> References: <20120831170554.GA32084@slacker.ja10629.home> Comments: In-reply-to Wayne Cuddy message dated "Fri, 31 Aug 2012 13:05:54 -0400" Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 15:28:05 -0400 Message-ID: <17727.1346441285@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Pg-Spam-Score: -2.1 (--) X-Archive-Number: 201208/31 X-Sequence-Number: 36802 Wayne Cuddy 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