Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add some isolation tests for deadlock detection and resolution.

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add some isolation tests for deadlock detection and resolution.
Date: 2016-02-17 16:18:11
Message-ID: 28688.1455725891@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers

I just had a rather disturbing thought to the effect that this entire
design --- ie, parallel workers taking out locks for themselves --- is
fundamentally flawed. As far as I can tell from README.parallel,
parallel workers are supposed to exit (and, presumably, release their
locks) before the leader's transaction commits. Releasing locks before
commit is wrong. Do I need to rehearse why?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-committers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joe Conway 2016-02-17 17:12:49 pgsql: Add new system view, pg_config
Previous Message Tom Lane 2016-02-17 15:04:54 Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add some isolation tests for deadlock detection and resolution.

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Raiskup 2016-02-17 16:47:03 Re: [HACKERS] Packaging of postgresql-jdbc
Previous Message Stas Kelvich 2016-02-17 15:59:29 Re: Tsvector editing functions