From:
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To:
"Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc:
"Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>,"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 19:03:16
Message-ID:
496C9114.EE98.0025.0@wicourts.gov (view raw or flat )
Thread:
2009-01-05 03:09:28 from "Lee McKeeman" <lmckeeman(at)opushealthcare(dot)com>
2009-01-05 14:39:15 from Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
2009-01-05 14:47:35 from "Lee McKeeman" <lmckeeman(at)opushealthcare(dot)com>
2009-01-05 14:56:30 from "Dave Page" <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>
2009-01-05 15:03:08 from "Lee McKeeman" <lmckeeman(at)opushealthcare(dot)com>
2009-01-05 20:08:22 from Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
2009-01-05 20:42:01 from Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
2009-01-05 21:25:38 from "Lee McKeeman" <lmckeeman(at)opushealthcare(dot)com>
2009-01-05 22:58:18 from Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
2009-01-06 00:03:14 from Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
2009-01-06 14:31:09 from Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
2009-01-12 13:26:48 from Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
2009-01-12 13:32:38 from Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
2009-01-12 14:03:09 from Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
2009-01-12 15:54:50 from "Lee McKeeman" <lmckeeman(at)opushealthcare(dot)com>
2009-01-12 17:47:19 from "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
2009-01-12 18:02:23 from Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
2009-01-12 18:35:28 from Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
2009-01-12 18:45:40 from "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
2009-01-12 18:51:15 from Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
2009-01-12 19:01:49 from "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
2009-01-12 19:21:08 from Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
2009-01-13 09:22:04 from Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
2009-01-13 16:18:58 from "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
2009-01-13 09:18:57 from Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
2009-01-13 16:59:52 from "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
2009-01-13 17:16:28 from Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
2009-01-13 17:29:02 from "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
2009-01-13 18:06:44 from Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
2009-01-13 18:18:40 from "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
2009-01-13 18:34:49 from Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
2009-01-13 18:43:41 from "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
2009-01-13 18:59:49 from Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
2009-01-13 19:03:16 from "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
2009-01-12 19:11:53 from Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
2009-01-22 22:58:26 from Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
2009-01-12 17:52:00 from Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
2009-01-12 17:41:01 from Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
Lists:
pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers
>>> Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
>> 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?
>
> Well generally deadlocks are treated differently in that they are
treated by
> rewriting the application to not cause deadlocks.
I certainly don't propose changing the PostgreSQL error number or the
content of what is logged. Just the SQLSTATE. How would that make
what you suggest harder? It would certainly allow applications and
frameworks which are SQLSTATE-aware to automatically recover from
these until the rewrite is complete, which can hardly be considered a
bad thing.
-Kevin
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
Next :From: Simon RiggsDate: 2009-01-13 19:07:05Subject : Re: Hot standby and b-tree killed itemsPrevious :From : Simon RiggsDate : 2009-01-13 19:03:15Subject : Re: Time to finalize patches for 8.4 beta
pgsql-bugs by date
Next :From: Merlin MoncureDate: 2009-01-13 19:39:11Subject : problem with non-greedy regex matchPrevious :From : Gregory StarkDate : 2009-01-13 18:59:49Subject : Re: [BUGS] Status of issue 4593
