Regarding this: >> So what does this have to do with relying on the results of read-only transactions that abort? Well, what if you had instead had R ROLLBACK instead of COMMIT -- maybe because you expected ROLLBACK and COMMIT to be equivalent for transactions that don't modify the database, or maybe because something else caused the transaction to abort? When W1 does its update, it will be checked for serialization failures, but aborted transactions are (intentionally) not included in those checks. W1 is therefore allowed to commit; the apparent serial order of execution is W1 followed by W2, and the results of the aborted transaction R aren't consistent with that. <<
So if I am reading the data and then commit, I should be always fine, correct? -- View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/How-to-reproduce-serialization-failure-for-a-read-only-transaction-tp5785569p5785757.html Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
