Re: SELECT FOR UPDATE - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: SELECT FOR UPDATE
Date
Msg-id 5397.1059106215@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: SELECT FOR UPDATE  (Thomas Swan <tswan@idigx.com>)
Responses Re: SELECT FOR UPDATE  (Thomas Swan <tswan@idigx.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Thomas Swan <tswan@idigx.com> writes:
>>> When a SELECT FOR UPDATE query is executed, are the row level locks on a 
>>> table acquired in any specific order 

Nope, just whatever order the chosen plan happens to visit the tuples
in.

> I had remembered several readings on ordered locking as a method to 
> prevent deadlocks, and associated that with select for update 
> methodology.  In theory if you aquired locks in the following order, for 
> each table/relation (in oid order) get rows/tuples (in oid order), you 
> could help avoid deadlock by never gaining a lock ahead of someone 
> else.

Hmmm .... this would only help for situations where all the locks of
interest are grabbed in a single scan.  I suppose that has some
usefulness, but it can hardly be said to eliminate deadlocks.  I kinda
doubt it's worth the trouble.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Larry Rosenman
Date:
Subject: Re: name of configure threading option
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: name of configure threading option