On Tue, 2012-02-14 at 19:32 -0500, Dan Ports wrote: > On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 09:27:58AM -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote: > > Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > > On 14.02.2012 04:57, Dan Ports wrote: > > >> The easiest answer would be to just treat every prepared > > >> transaction found during recovery as though it had a conflict in > > >> and out. This is roughly a one-line change, and it's certainly > > >> safe.
+1. I don't even see this as much of a problem. Prepared transactions hanging around for arbitrary periods of time cause all kinds of problems already. Those using them need to be careful to resolve them quickly -- and if there's a crash involved, I think it's reasonable to say they should be resolved before continuing normal online operations. > Hmm, it occurs to me if we have to abort a transaction due to > serialization failure involving a prepared transaction, we might want > to include the prepared transaction's gid in the errdetail. I like this idea. Regards, Jeff Davis -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers