| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "Jeff Davis" <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, "Lee McKeeman" <lmckeeman(at)opushealthcare(dot)com>, "PG Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [BUGS] Status of issue 4593 |
| Date: | 2009-01-12 18:51:15 |
| Message-ID: | 3552.1231786275@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> A re-sort after locking doesn't really make things all nice and
>> intuitive either.
> Would it make any sense to roll back and generate a
> SERIALIZATION_FAILURE?
If that's what you want then you run the transaction in serializable
mode. The point of doing it in READ COMMITTED mode is that you don't
want such a failure.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2009-01-12 19:01:49 | Re: [BUGS] Status of issue 4593 |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2009-01-12 18:45:40 | Re: [BUGS] Status of issue 4593 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marc Munro | 2009-01-12 18:53:29 | Re: [BUGS] Status of issue 4593 |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2009-01-12 18:45:40 | Re: [BUGS] Status of issue 4593 |