| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Greg Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | <Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>, "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Jeff Davis" <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, "<pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: User-facing aspects of serializable transactions |
| Date: | 2009-06-01 19:55:32 |
| Message-ID: | 4A23EBE3.EE98.0025.1@wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> If you can never know for sure that you've written your transaction
> safely
Whoa! I just noticed this phrase on a re-read. I think there might
be some misunderstanding here.
You can be sure you've written your transaction safely just as soon as
your COMMIT returns without error. Perhaps you're getting confused
because under the non-blocking approach, each transaction's read locks
(if any) continue to be tracked until all concurrent transactions
terminate in order to determine if some *other* transaction might need
to be rolled back.
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zdenek Kotala | 2009-06-01 19:57:48 | list_head naming conflict gcc 4.2/perl/solaris |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-06-01 19:52:23 | Re: It's June 1; do you know where your release is? |