Hi all,
I'm doing some experiments with NT, I din't expect this behaviuor:
create table test ( a integer );
insert into test values (3);
insert into test values (4);
insert into test values (5);
insert into test values (6);
SESSION 1;SESSION 2;
begin;
On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 01:38:57AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Gaetano Mendola [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
why SESSION 1 was unblocked ?
...
Why that commit unblock the SESSION 1?
IMHO session 1 should have been unblocked in both cases as soon as
session 2's subtransaction failed. We have
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 01:06:39AM +0200, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
I'm doing some experiments with NT, I din't expect this behaviuor:
First of all, let me point that the behavior on deadlock has been agreed
to change. Instead of only aborting the innermost transaction, it
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Gaetano, please apply the latest savepoints patch (savepoint-5.patch)
and let me know how it goes ...
where is it ?
Regards
Gaetano Mendola
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 11:00:25AM +0200, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
If I abort only the innermost transaction on session 2, the application
writer can have a retry loop on it, so it will issue the begin again
and the same update. Since session 1 is still locked, session 2
On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 11:06:19AM +0200, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Gaetano, please apply the latest savepoints patch (savepoint-5.patch)
and let me know how it goes ...
where is it ?
I just sent it by private mail to you (11kb). I don't see it in the
archives ...
--
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi all,
I'm doing some experiments with NT, I din't expect this behaviuor:
create table test ( a integer );
insert into test values (3);
insert into test values (4);
insert into test values (5);
insert into test values (6);
SESSION 1;
On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 01:06:39AM +0200, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
I'm doing some experiments with NT, I din't expect this behaviuor:
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
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? Your example is entirely unconvincing --- deadlock
is
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
Gaetano Mendola [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
why SESSION 1 was unblocked ?
...
Why that commit unblock the SESSION 1?
IMHO session 1 should have been unblocked in both cases as soon as
session 2's subtransaction failed. We have always made a practice
of releasing a transaction's locks
11 matches
Mail list logo
