Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Deferrable Unique Constraints

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>,pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Deferrable Unique Constraints
Date: 2005-01-27 14:24:11
Message-ID: 19156.1106835851@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> I don't see how you're in the clear. If session A does an insert and it
> doesn't see a duplicate and doesn't commit, but then B does an insert and sees
> the duplicate from A and marks his tentative, and then commits, shouldn't B's
> commit succeed?

No.  B, being the second to get there, has to wait to see if A commits
or not.  This is true already and it wouldn't change.  We would
however postpone the wait until B's commit time.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Oleg BartunovDate: 2005-01-27 14:35:51
Subject: strange 'vacuum verbose analyze' behaviour
Previous:From: Merlin MoncureDate: 2005-01-27 13:42:19
Subject: Re: Allow GRANT/REVOKE permissions to be applied to all schema objects with one command

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group