Not a lower strength lock, I would, but I'm not so familiar with the postgres
internals. I modified ri-triggers.c to exclude certain tables from the
locking itself (because I know the tables are not updated).

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Stephan Szabo [mailto:sszabo@megazone23.bigpanda.com]
Gesendet: Montag, 26. August 2002 17:29
An: Mario Weilguni
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Betreff: Re: [HACKERS] Deadlock situation using foreign keys
(reproduceable)



On Mon, 26 Aug 2002, Mario Weilguni wrote:

> I wrote this patch for my system, and it works fine. However, it's a
> really ugly workaround. I can publish the source if anybody is
> interested.

Which, the for update one or a lower strength lock? In either case,
certainly.



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Mon, 26 Aug 2002 17:30:28 +0200
"Mario Weilguni" <mario.weilguni@icomedias.com>
Re: Deadlock situation using foreign keys (reproduceable)
On Mon, 26 Aug 2002, Mario Weilguni wrote:

> Not a lower strength lock, I would, but I'm not so familiar with the postgres
> internals. I modified ri-triggers.c to exclude certain tables from the
> locking itself (because I know the tables are not updated).

It might help the op of this thread, so it's probably worth
posting. :)



Mon, 26 Aug 2002 08:33:25 -0700 (PDT)
Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone23.bigpanda.com>
Re: Deadlock situation using foreign keys (reproduceable)