Re: this is in plain text (row level locks)
От | Jenny - |
---|---|
Тема | Re: this is in plain text (row level locks) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | BAY1-F146uNjVuMhvqg00020ef2@hotmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | this is in plain text (row level locks) ("Jenny -" <nat_lazy@hotmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: this is in plain text (row level locks)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
>From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> >To: "Jenny -" <nat_lazy@hotmail.com> >Subject: Re: [HACKERS] this is in plain text (row level locks) Date: Sat, >02 Aug 2003 23:28:30 -0400 > > > if row-level locks are not recorded in proclock or any other shared >memory > > datastructuers, then why does lockmode (array or ints) of proclock >indicate > > that an AccessShareLock is acquired when a row is locked by >application.? > >That's a table lock --- it's independent of row locks. It's there >mostly to ensure someone doesn't delete the whole table out from under >you. > > regards, tom lane so even though the application locks a row in a table, table-level locks are automatically taken by postgesql ? why is that? thanks _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: