"Kevin Grittner" <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> writes:
> Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> If that's what you want then you run the transaction in serializable
>> mode. The point of doing it in READ COMMITTED mode is that you
>> don't want such a failure.
> Wait a minute -- there is not such guarantee in PostgreSQL when you
> start using WITH UPDATE on SELECT statements in READ COMMITTED mode.
> By starting two transactions in READ COMMITTED, and having each do two
> SELECTs WITH UPDATE (in opposite order) I was able to generate this:
> ERROR: deadlock detected
Huh? Deadlocks were not the issue here. What you asked for was a
failure if someone else had updated the rows you're selecting for
update.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
