| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| 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>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: [BUGS] Status of issue 4593 |
| Date: | 2009-01-13 18:43:41 |
| Message-ID: | 496C8C7D.EE98.0025.0@wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
>>> Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> we'd break 100,000 existing Java applications if we changed the
error.
In what way would an application want to treat deadlocks and update
conflicts differently? Both result from conflicts with concurrent
transactions and can be retried automatically. It seems like an
implementation detail with little chance of impact on applications to
me. Can anyone provide a contrary example or argument?
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2009-01-13 18:59:49 | Re: [BUGS] Status of issue 4593 |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2009-01-13 18:34:49 | Re: [BUGS] Status of issue 4593 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2009-01-13 18:59:49 | Re: [BUGS] Status of issue 4593 |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2009-01-13 18:34:49 | Re: [BUGS] Status of issue 4593 |