From: Markus Schaber <schabi@logix-tt.com>
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca>
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Changing the transaction isolation level within the stored
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 15:19:26 +0100
Message-ID: <43E214EE.3090005@logix-tt.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060126163902.GB4836@phlogiston.dyndns.org>
References: <1138198348.8828.32.camel@localhost.localdomain>
<43D79132.9050900@logix-tt.com>
<1138259463.16164.4.camel@localhost.localdomain>
<43D8999E.9090907@logix-tt.com>
<20060126113902.GB3995@phlogiston.dyndns.org>
<43D8C5CF.6030000@logix-tt.com>
<20060126163902.GB4836@phlogiston.dyndns.org>
Hi, Andreq,
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> I think you don't have a clear idea of what locks are necessary for
> updates. Write operations on a row must block other write operations
> on the same row. If more than one transaction needs the same kinds
> of locks on two different tables, but attempts to get those locks in
> the opposite order, you are all but guaranteed a deadlock. MVCC
> helps, but it can't avoid locking the same data when that data is
> being updated.
You're right, I was mislead from my memory.
Sorry for the confusion I brought to this issue.
Markus
--
Markus Schaber | Logical Tracking&Tracing International AG
Dipl. Inf. | Software Development GIS
Fight against software patents in EU! www.ffii.org www.nosoftwarepatents.org
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: schabi@logix-tt.com, ajs@crankycanuck.ca
Subject: Re: Changing the transaction isolation level within the stored
In-Reply-To: <43E214EE.3090005@logix-tt.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