| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: NT + deadlock intended behaviour ? |
| Date: | 2004-07-18 05:33:47 |
| Message-ID: | 20040718053347.GA3449@dcc.uchile.cl |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 01:16:17AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> writes:
> > First of all, let me point that the behavior on deadlock has been agreed
> > to change. Instead of only aborting the innermost transaction, it will
> > abort the whole transaction tree.
>
> Who agreed to that?
Huh? I showed this example to Bruce on IRC several days ago, while you
were away -- he said (or at least I understood) that he talked to you
and you agreed to this behavior.
Maybe I was confused about what he said. This is a small change from
the implementation POV anyway (two lines patch).
--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>)
"El número de instalaciones de UNIX se ha elevado a 10,
y se espera que este número aumente" (UPM, 1972)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-07-18 05:38:57 | Re: NT + deadlock intended behaviour ? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-07-18 05:16:17 | Re: NT + deadlock intended behaviour ? |