Re: Question Regarding Locks - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Karsten Hilbert
Subject Re: Question Regarding Locks
Date
Msg-id 20041028181505.A2423@hermes.hilbert.loc
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Question Regarding Locks  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Question Regarding Locks  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-general
Just so that I am not getting this wrong:

> BTW, a handy proxy for "row has not changed" is to see if its XMIN
> system column is still the same as before.
Considering that my business objects remember XMIN from when
they first got the row would the following sequence make sure
I am in good shape ?

begin;
    select ... for update;
    update ... set ... where
    my_pk=<my_pk_value>
        AND
    xmin=<the_old_xmin>

This should either update 1 row in which case I can commit or
zero rows in which case I need to rollback and handle the merge
conflict. The reasoning would be that the condition
my_pk=my_pk_value would select the row I am interested in
while xmin=the_old_xmin would ensure that row hasn't been
modified.

Am I right or is there a flaw in my thinking ?

Thanks,
Karsten
--
GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD  4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: "Tim Vadnais"
Date:
Subject: field incrementing in a PL/pgSQL trigger
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Question Regarding Locks