| From: | "Shridhar Daithankar" <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in> |
|---|---|
| To: | andreas(dot)jung(at)haufe(dot)de |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: concurrent writes |
| Date: | 2003-07-29 11:16:35 |
| Message-ID: | 3F26A4EB.30385.541E6C8@localhost |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On 29 Jul 2003 at 13:07, Andreas Jung wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 13:02, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> > On 29 Jul 2003 at 12:48, Andreas Jung wrote:
> > > Our experience was that the complete table has been locked (Solaris)
> > > but row-level locking was working with Linux.
> >
> > Whoa!! That's something. How did you conclude it is locked. If you can produce
> > some reproducible test case, this would be a big showstopper bug..
> >
>
> This problem appeard in 7.3.2 but it seems to have been fixed in 7.3.3.
> Our administrator complained that there has not been a notice in the
> CHANGELOG...so I am hestitating about choosing Postgres vs. Oracle :-)
Even with 7.3.2, do you have a independently reproducible test case? It should
help hackers to look into it.
Bye
Shridhar
--
Matz's Law: A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andreas Jung | 2003-07-29 11:21:45 | Re: concurrent writes |
| Previous Message | Andreas Jung | 2003-07-29 11:07:57 | Re: concurrent writes |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andreas Jung | 2003-07-29 11:21:45 | Re: concurrent writes |
| Previous Message | Andreas Jung | 2003-07-29 11:07:57 | Re: concurrent writes |