On 8/20/10 8:23 AM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
> On 2010-08-20 6:19 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
>>
>>> I think truly serializable transactions still need to SELECT FOR
>>> SHARE here for foreign keys to work, no?
>>
>> That depends on how you look at it. The SSI patch that Dan a
Greg Stark wrote:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
>> update session where id = X;
>>update order where orderid = 5;
>> update order where orderid = 5;
>
> So i think this will already deadlock.
>
> A has a exclusive-lock on session and is waiting on order<5>. B
> has an exclusive l
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 11:51 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> update session where id = X;
> update order where orderid = 5;
> update order where orderid = 5;
So i think this will already deadlock.
A has a exclusive-lock on session and is waiting on order<5>. B has
an exclusive l
On 2010-08-20 6:19 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
I think truly serializable transactions still need to SELECT FOR
SHARE here for foreign keys to work, no?
That depends on how you look at it. The SSI patch that Dan and I
have been working on doesn't attempt to change the im
Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
> I think truly serializable transactions still need to SELECT FOR
> SHARE here for foreign keys to work, no?
That depends on how you look at it. The SSI patch that Dan and I
have been working on doesn't attempt to change the implementation
techniques for foreign keys, b
I wrote:
> I don't see how SSI can be modified to generate some other form of
> serialization failure here, but I'm always open to suggestions.
Actually, after thinking about it a bit more, the UPDATE statements
*do* read the rows before writing, so a naive implementation would
see write skew i
Josh Berkus wrote:
>> Two sessions, in transaction:
>>
>> Process AProcess B
>>
>> update session where id = X;
>> update order where orderid = 5;
>> update order where orderid = 5;
>> update order where orderid = 5;
>> ... deadlock error.
>
> Johto on IRC pointed
On 2010-08-20 11:39 AM +0300, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 8/19/10 3:51 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
Two sessions, in transaction:
Process A Process B
update session where id = X;
update order where orderid = 5;
update order where orderid = 5;
u
On 20 August 2010 09:39, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 8/19/10 3:51 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> Kevin,
>>
>> This one is for you:
>>
>> Two sessions, in transaction:
>>
>> Process A Process B
>>
>> update session where id = X;
>> update order where orderid = 5;
>> update
On 8/19/10 3:51 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Kevin,
>
> This one is for you:
>
> Two sessions, in transaction:
>
> Process A Process B
>
> update session where id = X;
> update order where orderid = 5;
> update order where orderid = 5;
> updat
Kevin,
This one is for you:
Two sessions, in transaction:
Process A Process B
update session where id = X;
update order where orderid = 5;
update order where orderid = 5;
update order where orderid = 5;
... deadlock error.
It seems
11 matches
Mail list logo
