"Kevin Grittner" <[email protected]> writes: >>>> Josh Berkus <[email protected]> wrote: >> we'd break 100,000 existing Java applications if we changed the > error. > > In what way would an application want to treat deadlocks and update > conflicts differently? Both result from conflicts with concurrent > transactions and can be retried automatically. It seems like an > implementation detail with little chance of impact on applications to > me. Can anyone provide a contrary example or argument?
Well generally deadlocks are treated differently in that they are treated by rewriting the application to not cause deadlocks. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Get trained by Bruce Momjian - ask me about EnterpriseDB's PostgreSQL training! -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
