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 (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers