Re: possible concurrency bug or mistake in understanding read-committed behavior

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Jignesh Shah" <jkshah(at)gmail(dot)com>,<pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: possible concurrency bug or mistake in understanding read-committed behavior
Date: 2010-11-16 22:26:34
Message-ID: 4CE2B0BA0200002500037858@gw.wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Jignesh Shah <jkshah(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> The question is should the delete fail if it doesn't exist and
> cause a rollback or succeed with DELETE 0 ?

I think existing behavior is consistent with both the standard and
the other behaviors of PostgreSQL at the READ COMMITTED isolation
level. I might have found it surprising at first glance except that
there was a recent discussion about why an INSERT on one transaction
doesn't stand in the way of a concurrent UPDATE in another
transaction at that level. (I don't want to exhibit surprise again
so soon -- it might scare Bruce. ;-) )

This example does cause a serialization failure at the REPEATABLE
READ level as well as at the SERIALIZABLE level with the SSI patch,
which all seems sane to me, too.

-Kevin

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-11-16 22:28:43 Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Improved parallel make support
Previous Message Joshua D. Drake 2010-11-16 22:23:35 Re: unlogged tables