| From: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Vitaly Burovoy <vitaly(dot)burovoy(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <peter(dot)geoghegan86(at)gmail(dot)com>, Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, Jason Dusek <jason(dot)dusek(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SERIALIZABLE and INSERTs with multiple VALUES |
| Date: | 2016-10-12 20:41:41 |
| Message-ID: | CACjxUsPhc=bWuDCgUF3cmzA3DKF8HYDi6Vm5ONzOP5Y8FnTHbQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Thomas Munro
> <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> Here's a patch that shows one way to fix it. I think it does make
>> sense to change this, because otherwise automatic
>> retry-on-serialization-failure strategies will be befuddle by this
>> doomed transaction. And as you and Vitaly have said, there is
>> literally no concurrent update.
>
> I think that you have the right idea, but we still need to fix that
> buffer lock bug I mentioned...
Aren't these two completely separate and independent bugs?
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2016-10-12 20:55:16 | Re: SERIALIZABLE and INSERTs with multiple VALUES |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2016-10-12 20:07:32 | Re: SERIALIZABLE and INSERTs with multiple VALUES |