Re: Documenting when to retry on serialization failure

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Documenting when to retry on serialization failure
Date: 2022-03-24 14:56:22
Message-ID: 2968200.1648133782@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> OK, I see what you mean. There are 2 types of transaction, one that
> reads inside the transaction, one that decides what value to use some
> other way.

> So now we have 2 cases, both of which generate uniqueness violations,
> but only one of which might succeed if retried. The patch does cover
> this, I guess, by saying be careful, but I would be happier if we can
> also add

> "this is thought to occur only with multiple unique constraints and/or
> an exclusion constraints"

Um, what's that got to do with it? The example in
read-write-unique-4.spec involves only a single pkey constraint.

We could add something trying to explain that if the application inserts a
value into a constrained column based on data it read earlier, then any
resulting constraint violation might be effectively a serialization
failure.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2022-03-24 15:00:58 Re: Remove an unnecessary errmsg_plural in dependency.c
Previous Message Tom Lane 2022-03-24 14:49:18 Re: Remove an unnecessary errmsg_plural in dependency.c