On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 01:16:17AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > First of all, let me point that the behavior on deadlock has been agreed
> > to change. Instead of only aborting the innermost transaction, it will
> > abort the whole transaction tree.
>
> Who agreed to that?
Huh? I showed this example to Bruce on IRC several days ago, while you
were away -- he said (or at least I understood) that he talked to you
and you agreed to this behavior.
Maybe I was confused about what he said. This is a small change from
the implementation POV anyway (two lines patch).
--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>)
"El n�mero de instalaciones de UNIX se ha elevado a 10,
y se espera que este n�mero aumente" (UPM, 1972)
---------------------------(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
