Bruce Momjian writes:
> One idea is to require FOR UPDATE on the cursor --- while that prevents
> other transactions from changing the cursor, it doesn't deal with the
> current transaction modifying the table outside the cursor.
That would only keep existing rows from being deleted but not new rows
from being added.
> One idea is
> to have UPDATE/DELETE WHERE CURRENT OF behave like UPDATE/DELETE do now
> when they find a row that is locked by another transaction --- they wait
> to see if the transaction commits or aborts, then if committed they
> follow the tid to the newly updated row, check the WHERE clause to see
> if it still is satisfied, then perform the update. (Is this correct?)
Surely it would have to do something like that, but that's a matter of the
transaction isolation, not the sensitivity. It doesn't do anything to
address the potential problems I mentioned.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
