| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "Jeff Davis" <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, "Lee McKeeman" <lmckeeman(at)opushealthcare(dot)com>, "PG Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [BUGS] Status of issue 4593 |
| Date: | 2009-01-13 17:16:28 |
| Message-ID: | 28125.1231866988@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> If that's what you want then you run the transaction in serializable
>> mode. The point of doing it in READ COMMITTED mode is that you
>> don't want such a failure.
> Wait a minute -- there is not such guarantee in PostgreSQL when you
> start using WITH UPDATE on SELECT statements in READ COMMITTED mode.
> By starting two transactions in READ COMMITTED, and having each do two
> SELECTs WITH UPDATE (in opposite order) I was able to generate this:
> ERROR: deadlock detected
Huh? Deadlocks were not the issue here. What you asked for was a
failure if someone else had updated the rows you're selecting for
update.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2009-01-13 17:29:02 | Re: [BUGS] Status of issue 4593 |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2009-01-13 16:59:52 | Re: [BUGS] Status of issue 4593 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2009-01-13 17:23:41 | Re: New patch for Column-level privileges |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-01-13 17:02:57 | Re: per-database locale: createdb switches |