On 2011-04-11 23:30, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Excerpts from Jesper Krogh's message of lun abr 11 17:07:33 -0300 2011:
But when the locking is done "row-level" then it is correct
to do it that way. It would allthough be nice with a weaker
locklevel for that kind of updates (I have no clue if that i
Excerpts from Jesper Krogh's message of lun abr 11 17:07:33 -0300 2011:
> But when the locking is done "row-level" then it is correct
> to do it that way. It would allthough be nice with a weaker
> locklevel for that kind of updates (I have no clue if that is
> a hard problem).
http://www.command
On 2011-04-11 20:18, Jesper Krogh wrote:
Hi.
This seem a bit strange to me. In short:
Not any more I.. I guess what made me a bit confused was that
a "update table set key = value" would acually block out changes
on tables referencing this tuple even if the referenced column wasn't
effected by
