X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D40A53575 for ; Sat, 16 Apr 2005 15:15:09 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 70409-03 for ; Sat, 16 Apr 2005 18:15:00 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp102.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com (smtp102.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com [206.190.36.80]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9DE0453233 for ; Sat, 16 Apr 2005 15:14:58 -0300 (ADT) Received: from unknown (HELO phlogiston.dydns.org) (a.sullivan@rogers.com@216.75.167.195 with login) by smtp102.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com with SMTP; 16 Apr 2005 18:14:58 -0000 Received: by phlogiston.dydns.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id ABFF03D2E; Sat, 16 Apr 2005 14:14:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 14:14:57 -0400 From: Andrew Sullivan To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Nested Sets Message-ID: <20050416181457.GA14377@phlogiston.dyndns.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.021 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200504/234 X-Sequence-Number: 21127 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