| From: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Sim Zacks <sim(at)compulab(dot)co(dot)il> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: transaction confusion |
| Date: | 2006-09-18 09:15:55 |
| Message-ID: | 20060918091555.GA8796@svana.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 10:31:26AM +0200, Sim Zacks wrote:
> > I think the reason you are seeing failures in the first function is
> > that the initial DELETE is a no-op so it doesn't serialize anything,
> > and then there is conflict when the two INSERTs proceed in parallel.
>
> Here is a simple, reproducible example that delete doesn't cause it to use
> serial:
I wonder if you set the transaction mode to "serializable" whether that
would make a difference. In standard read-committed the way it works
below seems to be what's expected (each transaction sees what was
committed at the time is ran).
Have a ncie day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Johannes Weberhofer, Weberhofer GmbH | 2006-09-18 10:27:02 | Re: Postgres 8.1.4 sanity_check failed on SuSE 8.2 |
| Previous Message | Sim Zacks | 2006-09-18 08:31:26 | Re: transaction confusion |