| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: why can the isolation tester handle only one waiting process? |
| Date: | 2015-08-15 05:16:41 |
| Message-ID: | 23781.1439615801@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> After some study, I think the best thing to do here is change the way
> we handle the case where we reach a step that the use of a connection
> that is currently blocked on a lock. Right now, we handle that by
> declaring the permutation invalid; I'd like to change that so that
> consider that a cue to wait for that connnection to unblock itself.
Maybe a timeout there would be a good idea? I see that the code
currently will wait forever in some cases, which seems bad enough,
but it seems like you want to increase the risk of that considerably.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-08-15 05:17:16 | Re: why can the isolation tester handle only one waiting process? |
| Previous Message | Dickson S. Guedes | 2015-08-15 04:48:46 | Re: [RFC] allow 'semester' in functions EXTRACT, DATE_PART, TO_CHAR and so on. |