"Kevin Grittner" wrote:
>> Any chance of upgrading the lock to a relation lock, or killing
>> the serializable transaction instead?
>
> Absolutely. Good suggestion. Thanks!
I pushed a TODO SSI comment at the appropriate point with my ideas
on how best to fix this. I want to stick with the
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Looking at the predicate lock splitting, it occurs to me that
> it's possible for a non-serializable transaction to be canceled if
> it needs to split a predicate lock held by a concurrent
> serializable transaction, and you run out of space in the shared
> memory pre
On 26.12.2010 21:40, Kevin Grittner wrote:
To recap, I've had an open question on the Serializable Wiki page[1]
since January about how we should handle long-running transactions.
The algorithm published by Cahill et al requires keeping some
transaction information in memory for all committed tra
I wrote:
> Dan and I have now implemented most of the mitigation techniques
> ..., and I now feel confident I have a good grasp of how long each
> type of data is useful. (By useful I mean that to maintain data
> integrity without them it will be necessary to roll back some
> transactions which
