Re: NT + deadlock intended behaviour ?
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: NT + deadlock intended behaviour ? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 27606.1090127777@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: NT + deadlock intended behaviour ? (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@dcc.uchile.cl>) |
| Ответы |
Re: NT + deadlock intended behaviour ?
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
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? Your example is entirely unconvincing --- deadlock
is very far from being the only failure that will recur indefinitely,
if an app writer is so foolish as to code an indefinite retry loop.
Any simple illegal-data-value error will act the same.
I do not think declaring by fiat that certain types of errors abort the
whole tree is acceptable from the user end or reasonable from the
implementation end.
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: