Re: SELECT FOR UPDATE
От | Thomas Swan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: SELECT FOR UPDATE |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3F208A37.7010806@idigx.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: SELECT FOR UPDATE (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: SELECT FOR UPDATE
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian wrote: >Thomas Swan wrote: > > >>When a SELECT FOR UPDATE query is executed, are the row level locks on a >>table acquired in any specific order such as to enhance deadlock >>prevention? ( primary key, oid, etc. ) >> >> > >Interesting question, because in a join, you could have multiple tables >involved. Sorry, I don't know the answer. > > > 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. Locks could be released in the same order. The system should be predictable even with oid wrap arounds. I'm quite sure that someone has done something like this for postgres though.... Perhaps table/row oids are a good idea?
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: