From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
Subject: | Re: Adding a test for speculative insert abort case |
Date: | 2019-05-14 19:19:14 |
Message-ID: | 20190514191914.oe2cyj76f2ipqodb@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2019-05-10 14:40:38 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2019-05-01 11:41:48 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > I'm imagining something like
> >
> > if (pg_try_advisory_xact_lock(1))
> > pg_advisory_xact_lock(2);
> > else
> > pg_advisory_xact_lock(1);
> >
> > in t1_lock_func. If you then make the session something roughly like
> >
> > s1: pg_advisory_xact_lock(1);
> > s1: pg_advisory_xact_lock(2);
> >
> > s2: upsert t1 <blocking for 1>
> > s1: pg_advisory_xact_unlock(1);
> > s2: <continuing>
> > s2: <blocking for 2>
> > s1: insert into t1 values(1, 'someval');
> > s1: pg_advisory_xact_unlock(2);
> > s2: <continuing>
> > s2: spec-conflict
>
> Needed to be slightly more complicated than that, but not that much. See
> the attached test. What do you think?
>
> I think we should apply something like this (minus the WARNING, of
> course). It's a bit complicated, but it seems worth covering this
> special case.
And pushed. Let's see what the buildfarm says.
Regards,
Andres
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2019-05-14 19:22:42 | Re: Match table_complete_speculative() code to comment |
Previous Message | Ashwin Agrawal | 2019-05-14 19:17:35 | Re: Inconsistency between table am callback and table function names |