From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> |
---|---|
To: | Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: NT + deadlock intended behaviour ? |
Date: | 2004-07-18 17:17:40 |
Message-ID: | 20040718171740.GC2372@dcc.uchile.cl |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 11:00:25AM +0200, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >If I abort only the innermost transaction on session 2, the application
> >writer can have a retry loop on it, so it will issue the "begin" again
> >and the same update. Since session 1 is still locked, session 2 will
> >see a deadlock again. The user could cope with detecting a deadlock
> >condition and do something else, but frankly I don't think we can leave
> >this as is.
>
> I understand your point but I don't like the solution of invalidate the
> whole transaction tree ( I don't know the good one ).
FYI, this is all moot with savepoints because we don't allow to create a
savepoint in an aborted transaction block.
--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>)
"El sudor es la mejor cura para un pensamiento enfermo" (Bardia)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2004-07-18 17:41:51 | Re: NT + deadlock intended behaviour ? |
Previous Message | Rod Taylor | 2004-07-18 16:29:23 | Re: pg_dump bug fixing |