Re: Hot Standby (v9d)

From: Greg Stark <greg(dot)stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Hot Standby (v9d)
Date: 2009-01-23 20:13:22
Message-ID: EA1297A1-FC03-4D8A-A5E3-2D25A234A5C7@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


>>>
>>
> If you have a serializable transaction with subtransactions that
> suffers
> a serializability error it only cancels the current subtransaction.

This is a complete tangent to your work, but I wonder if this is
really right. I mean it's not as if we could have srrialized the
transaction as a whole with respect to whatever other transaction we
failed.

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2009-01-23 20:13:31 Re: Hot standby, conflict resolution
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-01-23 19:58:43 Re: AIX 4.3 getaddrinfo busted