| From: | Kyle Kingsbury <aphyr(at)jepsen(dot)io> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Potential G2-item cycles under serializable isolation |
| Date: | 2020-06-03 14:22:30 |
| Message-ID: | 4790f8af-91ce-1b2d-3c3e-4f2662c20b7a@jepsen.io |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On 6/2/20 7:13 PM, Thomas Munro wrote:
> That's (unfortunately) a known problem under concurrency. It'd be
> very nice to fix that, but it's an independent problem relating to DDL
> (not just tables, and not just IF EXISTS DDL, but anything modifying
> catalogues can race in this way and miss out on "nice" error messages
> or the IF EXISTS no-op). Here's a good short summary:
Ah, yes, this does explain it, thank you! I was a bit concerned, because I know
Postgres has a reputation for having transactional DDL. I guess this part of the
API isn't. :)
--Kyle
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kyle Kingsbury | 2020-06-03 16:44:42 | Re: Potential G2-item cycles under serializable isolation |
| Previous Message | Kyle Kingsbury | 2020-06-03 14:20:22 | Re: Potential G2-item cycles under serializable isolation |