Re: NT + deadlock intended behaviour ?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>
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 05:16:17
Message-ID: 27606.1090127777@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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? Your example is entirely unconvincing --- deadlock
is very far from being the only failure that will recur indefinitely,
if an app writer is so foolish as to code an indefinite retry loop.
Any simple illegal-data-value error will act the same.

I do not think declaring by fiat that certain types of errors abort the
whole tree is acceptable from the user end or reasonable from the
implementation end.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2004-07-18 05:33:47 Re: NT + deadlock intended behaviour ?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2004-07-18 05:04:43 Re: [HACKERS] Point in Time Recovery