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

From Jeff Davis
Subject Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks
Date
Msg-id 1164998581.25371.13.camel@dogma.v10.wvs
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 02:46 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paesold <mpaesold@gmx.at> writes:
> > Now seriously, isn't this a perfectly feasible scenario? E.g. the outer
> > transaction acquires a shared lock because of foreign key constraints, and
> > the sub transaction later wants to update that row?
>
> Yeah, it's not implausible.  But the only way I can see to implement
> that is to upgrade the outer xact's shared lock to exclusive, and that
> doesn't seem real cool either.
>

If it's a plausible enough sequence of events, is it worth adding a note
to the "migration" section of the release notes?

Regards,
    Jeff Davis


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks