Added to TODO:
* Fix problem when multiple subtransactions of the same outer transaction hold different types of locks, and one
subtransactionaborts
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-11/msg01011.php
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-12/msg00001.php
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Lane wrote:
> Jim Nasby <decibel@decibel.org> writes:
> > As for possibly using the in-memory store of multiple CIDs affecting
> > a tuple, could that not work if that store contained enough
> > information to 'rollback' the lock to it's original state when
> > restoring to a savepoint? AFAIK other backends would only need to
> > know what the current lock being held was, they wouldn't need to know
> > the history of it themselves...
>
> One of the interesting problems is that if you upgrade shared lock to
> exclusive and then want to roll that back, you might need to un-block
> other processes that tried to acquire share lock after you acquired
> exclusive. We have no way to do that in the current implementation.
> (Any such processes will be blocked on your transaction ID lock, which
> you can't release without possibly unblocking the wrong processes.)
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
-- Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
