Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> Looking at the predicate lock splitting, it occurs to me that
> it's possible for a non-serializable transaction to be canceled if
> it needs to split a predicate lock held by a concurrent
> serializable transaction, and you run out of space in the shared
> memory predicate lock area.
Good point. We don't want that, for sure.
> Any chance of upgrading the lock to a relation lock, or killing
> the serializable transaction instead?
Absolutely. Good suggestion. Thanks!
-Kevin