From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca>
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Nested Sets
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 14:14:57 -0400
Message-ID: <20050416181457.GA14377@phlogiston.dyndns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <fc63e1af05041607286c0447e8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <fc63e1af0504160531795a314d@mail.gmail.com>
<pan.2005.04.16.13.04.47.372088@arvin.dk>
<fc63e1af05041607286c0447e8@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 06:28:27PM +0400, A. Kulikov wrote:
> btw, do stored procedures (user functions in other words) have to
> implement table locking or be carried out inside a transaction such
> that the nested set indexes remain intact?
They're always in a transaction. Everything in Postgres is always
inside a transaction (although it might be a transaction of a single
statement). You shouldn't need to do anything special around table
locking.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
The fact that technology doesn't work is no bar to success in the marketplace.
--Philip Greenspun
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: ajs@crankycanuck.ca
Subject: Re: Nested Sets
In-Reply-To: <20050416181457.GA14377@phlogiston.dyndns.org>
* 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