Re: NT + deadlock intended behaviour ?

On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 01:16:17AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@dcc.uchile.cl> writes:
> > First of all, let me point that the behavior on deadlock has been agreed
> > to change.  Instead of only aborting the innermost transaction, it will
> > abort the whole transaction tree.
> 
> Who agreed to that?

Huh?  I showed this example to Bruce on IRC several days ago, while you
were away -- he said (or at least I understood) that he talked to you
and you agreed to this behavior.

Maybe I was confused about what he said.  This is a small change from
the implementation POV anyway (two lines patch).

-- 
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>)
"El número de instalaciones de UNIX se ha elevado a 10,
y se espera que este número aumente" (UPM, 1972)