Re: First-draft release notes for next week's releases - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: First-draft release notes for next week's releases
Date
Msg-id 20140317180845.GM16438@awork2.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: First-draft release notes for next week's releases  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: First-draft release notes for next week's releases  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: First-draft release notes for next week's releases  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 2014-03-17 14:01:03 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > * I wonder if we should make the possible origins a bit more
> >   general as it's perfectly possible to trigger the problem without
> >   foreign keys. Maybe: "can arise when a table row that has been updated
> >   is row locked; that can e.g. happen when foreign keys are used."
> 
> IIUC, this case only occurs when using the new-in-9.3 types of
> nonexclusive row locks.  I'm willing to bet that the number of
> applications using those is negligible; so I think it's all right to not
> mention that case explicitly, as long as the wording doesn't say that
> foreign keys are the *only* cause (which I didn't).

I actually think the issue could also occur with row locks of other
severities (is that the correct term?). Alvaro probably knows better,
but if I see correctly it's also triggerable if a backend waits for an
updating transaction to finish and follow_updates = true is passed to
heap_lock_tuple(). Which e.g. nodeLockRows.c does...

Greetings,

Andres Freund

-- Andres Freund                       http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: First-draft release notes for next week's releases
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: First-draft release notes for next week's releases