Tom Lane kirjutas N, 02.10.2003 kell 17:30:
> Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> writes:
> > What is going on here? Surely getting a FOR UPDATE row lock should
> > prevent another process getting an update lock?
> The behavior you describe would certainly be a bug, but you'll have to
> show a reproducible example to convince me it wasn't pilot error. One
> idea that springs to mind is that maybe additional rows with id=1 were
> inserted (by some other transaction) between the SELECT FOR UPDATE and
> the UPDATE?
Perhaps he was looking for "key locking", so thet "select ... where
key=1 for update" would also prevent inserts where key=1 ?
------------
Hannu
