| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Dan Ports <drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Concurrent MERGE |
| Date: | 2010-08-05 23:08:45 |
| Message-ID: | 4741.1281049725@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
>> Hm? Please explain what you're talking about.
> Transaction A locks 1 and wants a lock on 2
> Transaction B locks 2 and wants a lock on 3
> Transaction C locks 3 and wants a lock on 1
> I've never had the deadlock detector successfully deal with the above.
> Let alone a 4-way.
>> Not sure I believe this either; one deadlock kills one transaction.
>> If you lose multiple transactions I think you had multiple deadlocks.
> Deadlock termination kills *all* of the transactions involved in the
> deadlock; what else could it do? This is as opposed to serialization
> failures, in which usually only one of the transactions involved fails.
I'm not sure whose deadlock detector you're talking about, but it's
not Postgres'.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2010-08-05 23:24:22 | Re: Concurrent MERGE |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2010-08-05 23:07:10 | Re: Concurrent MERGE |