Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
>> Does the combination in $SUBJECT make sense?
>
> I don't think so; I don't know what it would mean.
Oh, I see -- it's part of the SELECT statement, causing a row-level
lock on each row as it is accessed.
>> It is currently allowed,
>
> I will t
I just realized I mixed two different (but related) cases in my previous
email:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Does the combination in $SUBJECT make sense? It is currently allowed,
> but of course the underlying locks only last while the creating
> transaction is open, and they are reacquired during a r
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Does the combination in $SUBJECT make sense?
I don't think so; I don't know what it would mean.
> It is currently allowed,
I will take a look.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing li
Does the combination in $SUBJECT make sense? It is currently allowed,
but of course the underlying locks only last while the creating
transaction is open, and they are reacquired during a refresh.
Somewhat related is that the error message they emit is a bit
nonstandard:
cannot lock rows in mate
