| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Dan Ports <drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Concurrent MERGE |
| Date: | 2010-08-05 22:49:05 |
| Message-ID: | 4C5B3FE1.5030500@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Hm? Please explain what you're talking about.
Transaction A locks 1 and wants a lock on 2
Transaction B locks 2 and wants a lock on 3
Transaction C locks 3 and wants a lock on 1
I've never had the deadlock detector successfully deal with the above.
Let alone a 4-way.
> Not sure I believe this either; one deadlock kills one transaction.
> If you lose multiple transactions I think you had multiple deadlocks.
Deadlock termination kills *all* of the transactions involved in the
deadlock; what else could it do? This is as opposed to serialization
failures, in which usually only one of the transactions involved fails.
--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mike Fowler | 2010-08-05 22:56:52 | Re: Initial review of xslt with no limits patch |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-08-05 22:41:13 | Re: Concurrent MERGE |