| From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| 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 18:59:49 |
| Message-ID: | 871vv7hw0q.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
>>>> Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>> we'd break 100,000 existing Java applications if we changed the
> error.
>
> 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.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Get trained by Bruce Momjian - ask me about EnterpriseDB's PostgreSQL training!
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2009-01-13 19:03:16 | Re: [BUGS] Status of issue 4593 |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2009-01-13 18:43:41 | Re: [BUGS] Status of issue 4593 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-01-13 19:03:15 | Re: Time to finalize patches for 8.4 beta |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2009-01-13 18:43:41 | Re: [BUGS] Status of issue 4593 |