| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Hot Standby (v9d) |
| Date: | 2009-01-23 19:17:11 |
| Message-ID: | 497A17B7.1080001@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs wrote:
> If you have a serializable transaction with subtransactions that suffers
> a serializability error it only cancels the current subtransaction. That
> means it's snapshot is still valid and can be used again. By analogy, as
> long as a transaction does not see any data that is inconsistent with
> its snapshot it seems OK for it to continue. So I think it is correct.
Yeah, you're right. How bizarre.
> (I was sorely tempted to make it "snapshot too old", as a joke).
Yeah, that is a very describing message, actually. If there wasn't any
precedence to that, I believe we might have came up with exactly that
message ourselves.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Chernow | 2009-01-23 19:17:45 | Re: AIX 4.3 getaddrinfo busted |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-01-23 18:58:15 | Re: Controlling hot standby |