Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Now, if a subtransaction has got a lock on some tuple, and another
> transaction tree tries to grab the lock on that tuple, it should have to
> wait for the entire transaction tree to finish. But what if the
> subtransaction that got the lock aborts? Maybe the waiter could awake
> at that point.
Yes. At present, a transaction that aborts will *immediately* drop all
its locks (and other shared resources), even before waiting for its
client to acknowledge the failure. Seems to me the same should hold
true of subtransactions.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
