From: | Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | "Olivier MATROT *EXTERN*" <olivier(dot)matrot(at)accelis-sir(dot)fr>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Serialization exception : Who else was involved? |
Date: | 2014-12-02 09:54:57 |
Message-ID: | A737B7A37273E048B164557ADEF4A58B17DA6E49@ntex2010a.host.magwien.gv.at |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Olivier MATROT wrote:
> Serialization conflict detection is done in src/backend/storage/lmgr/predicate.c, where transactions
> that are doomed to fail are marked as such with the SXACT_FLAG_DOOMED flag.
>
> I simply added elog(NOTIFY,...) calls with the DEBUG1 level, each time the flag is set, compiled the
> code and give it a try.
>
> The results are amazing for me, because this simple modification allows me to see which query is
> marking other running transactions to fail.
>
> Without this information, this is really difficult to understand what’s going on and, eventualy,
> modify my program to make my transactions run successfully more often.
>
> What is the correct way to suggest this improvement for a future version of PostgreSQL ?
First you should make this suggestion on the -hackers list; if you have
a patch against HEAD, attach it.
If you get positive or encouraging feedback, add the patch to the next commitfest.
People who contribute code are also expected to review code.
Read the Developer FAQ:
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Developer_FAQ
Another helpful article:
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/So,_you_want_to_be_a_developer%3F
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Herouth Maoz | 2014-12-02 10:26:48 | Re: Partitioning of a dependent table not based on date |
Previous Message | Olivier MATROT | 2014-12-02 09:06:03 | Re: Serialization exception : Who else was involved? |