On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 05:57 -0500, Dan Ports wrote:
> This summary is right on. I would add one additional detail or
> clarification to the last point, which is that rather than checking for
> a cycle, we're checking for a transaction with both "in" and "out"
> conflicts, which every cycle must contain.
To clarify, this means that it will get some false positives, right?
commit -- throws error
T1 has a conflict out to T2, and T1 has a conflict in from T3.
T2 has a conflict in from T1.
T3 has a conflict out to T1.
T1 is canceled because it has both a conflict in and a conflict out. But
the results are the same as a serial order of execution: T3, T1, T2.
Is there a reason we can't check for a real cycle, which would let T1
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Greg Smith||Date: 2011-01-27 17:18:37|
|Subject: Re: Spread checkpoint sync|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2011-01-27 17:17:02|
|Subject: Upcoming back-branch updates|