Re: WIP Patch: Pgbench Serialization and deadlock errors

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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