> I have just encountered some applications that really need
> transactions and so have been perusing the transaction statements and
> the lock man page. Thinking of the possibility of deadlocks if two
> processes try to acquire locks in opposite order suggested a solution.
>
> Couldn't the parser syntax be expanded to
>
> LOCK [TABLE] table1 [, table2 [, table3 [...]]]
>
> in which case locks on the entire group of tables could be obtained
> atomically. If one fails, the process should release locks on all the
> rest, wait a bit, and retry. This should prevent infinite deadlocks
> since all locks (not just the most recent one of several independent
> locks) would be released at some point, allowing other processes to
> assert theirs.
You give a nice extension of the LOCK statement, that is quite valid,
_and_ can not be simulated with multiple lock statements.
Complex kernel locking systems, mostly multi-cpu kernels, have to do
similar things. You want an 'all or nothing' lock statement. I will
add this to the TODO list.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
