Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks

Tom Lane wrote:
 > I'm tempted to just error out in this scenario rather than allow the
 > lock upgrade.  Thoughts?

Although this seems to be a technically hard problem, the above sentence 
does not sound like the PostgreSQL way to solve problems (rather like 
MySQL). ;-)

Now seriously, isn't this a perfectly feasible scenario? E.g. the outer 
transaction acquires a shared lock because of foreign key constraints, and 
the sub transaction later wants to update that row?

Best Regards
Michael Paesold