After takin a swig o' Arrakan spice grog, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Troels Arvin) belched out: > On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 14:14:57 -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote: >> You shouldn't need to do anything special around table >> locking. > > - Except of one wants "True Serializability" (see chapter 12.2 in the > manual). But I don't know if it's possible to handle table locking from > within a user defined function.
"Inside stored functions" is one of the ultimate examples of places where you are certain to be honest-to-goodness inside a transaction. You can't change transactions while inside a function; all the in-the-function processing is sure to take place in one transaction's context. In theory, savepoints may ultimately change that a little bit, in that you might have portions of processing in different subtransactions. But nonetheless Andrew's point remains valid: There is no need to do any special locking surrounding processing that goes on inside a stored procedure because it is all suitably embedded in a transaction. -- (reverse (concatenate 'string "moc.enworbbc" "@" "enworbbc")) http://linuxdatabases.info/info/slony.html "The problem with the current Lisp Machine system is that nothing ever calls anything anymore." -- KMP ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
