| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Deferrable Unique Constraints |
| Date: | 2005-01-27 14:24:11 |
| Message-ID: | 19156.1106835851@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> I don't see how you're in the clear. If session A does an insert and it
> doesn't see a duplicate and doesn't commit, but then B does an insert and sees
> the duplicate from A and marks his tentative, and then commits, shouldn't B's
> commit succeed?
No. B, being the second to get there, has to wait to see if A commits
or not. This is true already and it wouldn't change. We would
however postpone the wait until B's commit time.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Oleg Bartunov | 2005-01-27 14:35:51 | strange 'vacuum verbose analyze' behaviour |
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2005-01-27 13:42:19 | Re: Allow GRANT/REVOKE permissions to be applied to all schema objects with one command |