| From: | Andreas Jung <andreas(dot)jung(at)haufe(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: concurrent writes |
| Date: | 2003-07-29 11:21:45 |
| Message-ID: | 1059477705.30414.36.camel@sentinel.sb.haufe.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 13:16, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> On 29 Jul 2003 at 13:07, Andreas Jung wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 13:02, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> > > On 29 Jul 2003 at 12:48, Andreas Jung wrote:
> > > > Our experience was that the complete table has been locked (Solaris)
> > > > but row-level locking was working with Linux.
> > >
> > > Whoa!! That's something. How did you conclude it is locked. If you can produce
> > > some reproducible test case, this would be a big showstopper bug..
> > >
> >
> > This problem appeard in 7.3.2 but it seems to have been fixed in 7.3.3.
> > Our administrator complained that there has not been a notice in the
> > CHANGELOG...so I am hestitating about choosing Postgres vs. Oracle :-)
>
> Even with 7.3.2, do you have a independently reproducible test case? It should
> help hackers to look into it.
>
I need to ask our postgres god and let you know.
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Deepa K | 2003-07-29 12:02:41 | Can trigger return value |
| Previous Message | Shridhar Daithankar | 2003-07-29 11:16:35 | Re: concurrent writes |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2003-07-29 12:17:44 | Re: an aggregate array function |
| Previous Message | Shridhar Daithankar | 2003-07-29 11:16:35 | Re: concurrent writes |