Re: Stupid question on Read Committed Isolation Level

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: chris(at)pgsql(dot)com
Cc: "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Stupid question on Read Committed Isolation Level
Date: 2004-01-29 18:21:34
Message-ID: 25435.1075400494@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Chris Bowlby <chris(at)pgsql(dot)com> writes:
> Would this not create the potention for a dead lock if transaction1 is
> never completed, and still active for an indefinate period of time?

If trans1 later waits (directly or indirectly) for trans2, we'll detect
the deadlock and abort one xact or the other to clear it. If trans1 is
idle because the client is asleep at the wheel, that could be
unfortunate, but it's not a deadlock.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeroen T. Vermeulen 2004-01-29 18:34:57 Re: Stupid question on Read Committed Isolation Level
Previous Message Chris Bowlby 2004-01-29 18:16:23 Re: Stupid question on Read Committed Isolation Level