| From: | "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>, "Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: relcache refcount |
| Date: | 2004-05-14 13:35:41 |
| Message-ID: | 46C15C39FEB2C44BA555E356FBCD6FA40184D0D6@m0114.s-mxs.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > Why can't we keep all locks until main tx end ?
>
> For committed subtransactions we have to do that, yes, but for aborted
> subtransactions we must release. Otherwise you can't implement a retry
> loop around a potentially-deadlocking operation.
Ok, that would certainly be good to have, but it is imho not a "must have".
> > (I am assuming that a deadlock will still break the whole tx)
>
> Wrong. We might as well not bother with the entire project.
There are plenty of examples that do not involve deadlocks.
The most prominent was plobably "insert -> duplicate key -> update instead"
Also the new NOLOCK statements come to mind, ...
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-05-14 13:41:58 | Re: [HACKERS] threads stuff/UnixWare |
| Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2004-05-14 13:26:15 | Re: Bogus permissions display in 7.4 |