Re: Fwd: Dead lock
От | Merlin Moncure |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Fwd: Dead lock |
Дата | |
Msg-id | AANLkTik4XC9oxIQFX4ei_Xyez4lPb00NENkbukhYr0DH@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Fwd: Dead lock (Dave Crooke <dcrooke@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-performance |
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Dave Crooke <dcrooke@gmail.com> wrote: > If you're doing straight SQL bulk updates, then as someone suggested, you could use an ORDER BY on a subquery, but I don'tknow if that is a guarantee, if you're not actually displaying the results then the DB may be technically allowed tooptimize it out from underneath you. The only way to be sure is a cursor / procedure. 'order by' should be safe if you use SELECT...FOR UPDATE. update doesn't have an order by clause. Using cursor/procedure vs a query is not the material point; you have to make sure locks are acquired in a regular way. update foo set x=x where id in (select * from bar order by x) does look dangerous. I think: update foo set x=x where id in (select * from bar order by x for update) should be ok. I don't usually do it that way. merlin
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: