Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> Looking at the predicate lock splitting, it occurs to me that
> it's possible for a non-serializable transaction to be canceled if
> it needs to split a predicate lock held by a concurrent
> serializable transaction, and you run out of space in the shared
> memory predicate lock area.
Good point. We don't want that, for sure.
> Any chance of upgrading the lock to a relation lock, or killing
> the serializable transaction instead?
Absolutely. Good suggestion. Thanks!
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2010-12-29 18:35:07|
|Subject: Re: and it's not a bunny rabbit, either|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-12-29 18:01:54|
|Subject: Re: pg_streamrecv for 9.1? |