Re: [BUGS] Status of issue 4593

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
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>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: [BUGS] Status of issue 4593
Date: 2009-01-13 18:34:49
Message-ID: 496CDEC9.3050403@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers


> Deadlocks like this are the only kind of serialization error possible
> under "traditional" (non-MVCC) databases. These are much more rare in
> MVCC than update conflicts, but that doesn't mean they aren't
> serialization failures there, too. I think it is a violation of the
> standard for PostgreSQL not to report them with SQLSTATE '40001'.

I'm not sure that inductive reasoning applies to the SQL standard. And
we'd break 100,000 existing Java applications if we changed the error.
In my opinion, this falls under the heading of "it would be a nice thing
to do if we were starting over, but not now."

--Josh

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2009-01-13 18:43:41 Re: [BUGS] Status of issue 4593
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-01-13 18:22:04 Re: BUG #4613: intarray_del_elem returns an invalid empty array (for nullif comparison)

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2009-01-13 18:43:41 Re: [BUGS] Status of issue 4593
Previous Message Kevin Grittner 2009-01-13 18:18:40 Re: [BUGS] Status of issue 4593