From: Ludwig Lim <lud_nowhere_man@yahoo.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: PostgreSQL Mailing List <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Locking that will delayed a SELECT
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 03:47:46 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <20021022104746.28403.qmail@web80301.mail.yahoo.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <17217.1034949478@sss.pgh.pa.us>
--- Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> A simple answer is to have T1 grab an ACCESS
> EXCLUSIVE lock on some
> table to block T2's progress. If that locks out
> third-party
> transactions that you'd rather would go through, you
> can probably use
> a lesser form of lock --- but then both T1 and T2
> will have to cooperate
> since each will need to explicitly take a lock.
- Is there a possibility of having a lock that
similar to a row level ACCESS EXCLUSIVE (i.e. ROW
ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock) in the future release of
PostgreSQL? The ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock also locks the
rows not used in T1, making concurrent transactions
almost impossible.
regards,
ludwig
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
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: lud_nowhere_man@yahoo.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
Subject: Re: Locking that will delayed a SELECT
In-Reply-To: <20021022104746.28403.qmail@web80301.mail.yahoo.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