| From: | markw(at)osdl(dot)org |
|---|---|
| To: | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, osdldbt-general(at)lists(dot)sourceforge(dot)net |
| Subject: | Re: Is this a commit problem? |
| Date: | 2003-09-25 18:44:19 |
| Message-ID: | 200309251844.h8PIiM132127@mail.osdl.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 25 Sep, Tom Lane wrote:
> markw(at)osdl(dot)org writes:
>> I take it PQexec() should wait until the COMMIT finishes?
>
> Yeah, it does. Where is the next iteration of the transaction coming
> from?
>
> Another thought occurred to me --- you said you have many parallel
> instances of this transaction, but they affect different rows because
> they have different keys. Is it possible there's a logic bug that
> occasionally allows parallel transactions to be fired with the same key?
Yeah, that thought has crossed my mind. I did catch an addition error
in my logic that contributed to additional rollbacks. ;) But I did try
to be diligent and output everything that was going on in the
transaction to make sure there weren't any parallel transactions with
the same key. I feel confident that the logic is correct.
Mark
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-09-25 18:46:32 | Re: Question on adding new indexes to Postgresql |
| Previous Message | Cyrille Chepelov | 2003-09-25 18:22:18 | Re: [HACKERS] Threads vs Processes (was: NuSphere and PostgreSQL for |