On Sat, 2009-01-24 at 19:45 +0000, Greg Stark wrote: > There already is quite an extensive discussion of how FOR UPDATE > behaves including these kinds of violations.
Not in the documentation, that I can see. And I think it's important that it be there for the reasons I mentioned. Can you refer me to the dicussion that you're talking about? I don't remember any discussion that points out that FOR UPDATE/FOR SHARE is broken in the simple case of a simple WHERE clause. > What you propose is interesting though. It would have been impossible > before subtransactions but it's doable now. Still the performance > might be unusable for complex queries. It's basically generalizing the > logic a serializable transaction would take to a read committed command. It might be effective for queries that are highly selective on large tables. Still has strange deadlock possibilities, but I think that's the case already. Regards, Jeff Davis -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers