From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Marina Polyakova <m(dot)polyakova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: WIP Patch: Pgbench Serialization and deadlock errors |
Date: | 2017-06-15 21:18:06 |
Message-ID: | 20170615211806.sfkpiy2acoavpovl@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Kevin Grittner wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 2:16 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > On 2017-06-14 11:48:25 +0300, Marina Polyakova wrote:
> >> P.S. Does this use case (do not retry transaction with serialization or
> >> deadlock failure) is most interesting or failed transactions should be
> >> retried (and how much times if there seems to be no hope of success...)?
> >
> > I can't quite parse that sentence, could you restate?
>
> The way I read it was that the most interesting solution would retry
> a transaction from the beginning on a serialization failure or
> deadlock failure.
As far as I understand her proposal, it is exactly the opposite -- if a
transaction fails, it is discarded. And this P.S. note is asking
whether this is a good idea, or would we prefer that failing
transactions are retried.
I think it's pretty obvious that transactions that failed with
some serializability problem should be retried.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2017-06-15 21:22:08 | Re: WIP Patch: Pgbench Serialization and deadlock errors |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-06-15 21:16:03 | Re: intermittent failures in Cygwin from select_parallel tests |