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

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks
Date
Msg-id 20061201113711.GC30441@alvh.no-ip.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks  ("Simon Riggs" <simon@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks  ("Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki@enterprisedb.com>)
Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Simon Riggs wrote:

> ISTM that multitrans could be used here. Two xids, one xmax.

Hmm, yeah, this seems a reasonable suggestion.  The problem is that we
don't have a mechanism today for saying "this Xid holds a shared lock,
this one holds an exclusive lock".  So code-wise it wouldn't be simple
to do.  It's a single bit per Xid, but I don't see where to store such a
thing.

I'm not sure we can use the simple "raise an ERROR" answer though,
because for users that would be a regression.

-- 
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Heikki Linnakangas"
Date:
Subject: Re: Storing session-local data
Next
From: "Heikki Linnakangas"
Date:
Subject: Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks