On pe, 2003-08-01 at 03:12, Stephan Szabo wrote:
> > interface. If we run them one by one everything goes fine. But if I
> > run them in parallel - in separate processes - all but the first one
> > claiming the lock for "ryhmalaiset"-table will fail. And they will
> > fail as soon as the first one
On pe, 2003-08-01 at 09:21, Stephan Szabo wrote:
> On 1 Aug 2003, Mauri Sahlberg wrote:
>
> > On pe, 2003-08-01 at 08:51, Stephan Szabo wrote:
> > > On 1 Aug 2003, Mauri Sahlberg wrote:
> > >
> > > > On pe, 2003-08-01 at 03:12, Stephan Szabo wrote:
> > > > > > interface. If we run them one by one
On 1 Aug 2003, Mauri Sahlberg wrote:
> On pe, 2003-08-01 at 08:51, Stephan Szabo wrote:
> > On 1 Aug 2003, Mauri Sahlberg wrote:
> >
> > > On pe, 2003-08-01 at 03:12, Stephan Szabo wrote:
> > > > > interface. If we run them one by one everything goes fine. But if I
> > > > > run them in parallel
On 1 Aug 2003, Mauri Sahlberg wrote:
> On pe, 2003-08-01 at 08:51, Stephan Szabo wrote:
> > On 1 Aug 2003, Mauri Sahlberg wrote:
> >
> > > On pe, 2003-08-01 at 03:12, Stephan Szabo wrote:
> > > > > interface. If we run them one by one everything goes fine. But if I
> > > > > run them in parallel
On pe, 2003-08-01 at 08:51, Stephan Szabo wrote:
> On 1 Aug 2003, Mauri Sahlberg wrote:
>
> > On pe, 2003-08-01 at 03:12, Stephan Szabo wrote:
> > > > interface. If we run them one by one everything goes fine. But if I
> > > > run them in parallel - in separate processes - all but the first one
>
On 1 Aug 2003, Mauri Sahlberg wrote:
> On pe, 2003-08-01 at 03:12, Stephan Szabo wrote:
> > > interface. If we run them one by one everything goes fine. But if I
> > > run them in parallel - in separate processes - all but the first one
> > > claiming the lock for "ryhmalaiset"-table will fail. A
On pe, 2003-08-01 at 03:12, Stephan Szabo wrote:
> > interface. If we run them one by one everything goes fine. But if I
> > run them in parallel - in separate processes - all but the first one
> > claiming the lock for "ryhmalaiset"-table will fail. And they will
> > fail as soon as the first one
On 31 Jul 2003, Mauri Sahlberg wrote:
> Either we have found a bug in Postgres (which I seriously doubt) or we
> are being stupid clever enough way to not notice it.
>
> We have five complex "transactions" that are executed thru pq++/c++
> interface. If we run them one by one everything goes fine
Hi,
Either we have found a bug in Postgres (which I seriously doubt) or we
are being stupid clever enough way to not notice it.
We have five complex "transactions" that are executed thru pq++/c++
interface. If we run them one by one everything goes fine. But if I
run them in parallel - in separat
