| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ERRCODE_T_R_DEADLOCK_DETECTED |
| Date: | 2015-03-19 13:09:22 |
| Message-ID: | 20150319130922.GC9495@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-03-19 12:50:09 +0000, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> For me the big question is whether software written to retry a
> transaction from the beginning when it gets this SQLSTATE would be
> doing something dumb to retry transactions (perhaps after a brief
> delay) for the conflict with recovery. If using the same automated
> recovery techniques is sane, then IMO it makes sense to use the
> same SQLSTATE.
Yes, it imo makes sense to use the same techniques. In both cases you
need to keep enough state to give up at some point; the combination of
running transactions might make the likelihood of succeeding too low.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dmitry Dolgov | 2015-03-19 13:16:56 | GSoC 2015: Extra Jsonb functionality |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2015-03-19 12:50:09 | Re: ERRCODE_T_R_DEADLOCK_DETECTED |