Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

"Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> Let's throw an error for now. We have to come back to this in 8.3, I think.

After further thought I think we should also seriously consider plan C:
do nothing for now.  We now realize that there have been related bugs
since 8.0, namely that
begin;select some rows for update;savepoint x;update the same rows;rollback to x;

leaves the tuple(s) not locked.  The lack of complaints about this from
the field suggests that this isn't a huge problem in practice.  If we
do make it throw an error I'm afraid that we will break applications
that aren't having a problem at the moment.

I'm also realizing that a fix along the throw-an-error line is
nontrivial, eg, HeapTupleSatisfiesUpdate would need another return code.

So at this point we are facing three options:- throw in a large and poorly tested "fix" at the last moment;- postpone
8.2until we can think of a real fix, which might  be a major undertaking;- ship 8.2 with the same behavior 8.0 and 8.1
had.
None of these are very attractive, but I'm starting to think the last
is the least bad.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jeff Davis
Date:
Subject: Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks
Next
From: "Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
Subject: Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks