| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Documenting when to retry on serialization failure |
| Date: | 2022-03-24 16:29:41 |
| Message-ID: | 3018875.1648139381@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 at 14:56, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Um, what's that got to do with it? The example in
>> read-write-unique-4.spec involves only a single pkey constraint.
> Yes, but as you explained, its not actually a serializable case, it
> just looks a bit like one.
> That means we are not currently aware of any case where the situation
> is serializable but the error message is uniqueness violation, unless
> we have 2 or more unique constraints and/or an exclusion constraint.
Meh. I'm disinclined to document it at that level of detail, both
because it's subject to change and because we're not sure that that
list is exhaustive. I think a bit of handwaving is preferable.
How about the attached? (Only the third new para is different.)
regards, tom lane
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| retryable_error_docs.v3.patch | text/x-diff | 3.8 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2022-03-24 16:33:56 | Re: Column Filtering in Logical Replication |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2022-03-24 16:21:10 | Re: Reducing power consumption on idle servers |