Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks

> > I'm not sure we can use the simple "raise an ERROR" answer though,
> > because for users that would be a regression.
> 
> I've reconsidered the idea of upgrading the outer xact's shared lock
to
> exclusive: at first I thought that would be hard to implement
correctly,
> but now I realize it's easy.  Just re-use the XID that's in the
multixact
> as the one to store as the exclusive locker, instead of storing our
> current subxact XID.  In some cases this will be a subcommitted XID of
> the current subxact or a parent, but the locking semantics are the
same,
> and even though we think such an XID is finished everyone else will
see
> it as still live so the appearance of its XID in an XMAX field
shouldn't
> be an issue.

fwiw, I think that is good.

Andreas