Neil Conway wrote:
> The docs on concurrency control & deadlocks (User's Guide, 9.3.3, CVS
> docs) state the following:
>
> Use of explicit locking can cause deadlocks, wherein two (or more)
> transactions each hold locks that the other wants.
>
> This isn't completely true, as deadlocks can occur in applications
> that don't use explicit 'LOCK' statements.
>
> Can someone suggest a better way to phrase the intent of that
> statement?
But it isn't saying there aren't other deadlock cases, just that
explicit locks tend to cause them more frequently. You can add "Often"
to the front of the sentence.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
