On 8/25/10 1:35 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> If the row is "key share" locked (as opposed to "tuple share" locks we
> already have), then an UPDATE would only work if it was a non-HOT
> UPDATE. Yes, that would save us some effort in working out whether to
> allow the UPDATE or not. It *is* more restrictive than strictly
> necessary, but much better than the current situation. So at least we
> know that part of it has an easy solution.
I agree that this would be an improvement.
It still has the issue of being baffling to users (why did I get a
deadlock this time, and not THAT time?) but current behavior has that
problem. Heck, current behavior is often baffling to *me*.
The other thing which came out of this incident (and many user reports)
is the rather extreme opacity of our locking information, despite the
improvements of the last 2 versions. However, I don't have a proposal
on how that should be fixed .... yet.
--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
