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 .
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, se
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
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 wil
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.
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 immedi
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.
>
>
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 --- deadloc
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 tr
