Hello David, Thanks for that, I had thought that you were a committer. Sounds like it might all be a bit too difficult.
Anthony On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 9:39 AM David G. Johnston <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 4:30 PM Anthony Berglas <anth...@berglas.org> > wrote: > >> You are talking about optimistic locking, commonly used for web >> applications where there is no transaction kept open during user think time. >> > > Yes, I said as much a couple of emails ago. > > >> And more importantly it is very important that people do not use a SELECT >> without a FOR UPDATE and introduce subtle, unreproducible threading errors. >> > > Ok. This does get covered, though I agreed earlier that there seems to be > room for improvement. > > So please do have the update (or similar) inserted. If you wanted to also >> talk about optimistic locking that would be fine, but probably not >> necessary. >> > > Just to be clear - this isn't going to be up to me (at least, not anytime > soon). First a correctly written patch needs to be produced. If/when > someone decides to do that we can move onto getting it applied to the > source code (which is done by a committer, which also is not me). > >> P.S. Do you know if Postgresql Guarantees that all timestamps are >> distinct, even if they occur within the same clock tick? (i.e. does it run >> the clock forward). I have another reason to know that. Using clocks is >> iffy for synchronization. >> > > I've never seen such a guarantee documented...but the details involved are > beyond my experience with the code. > > David J. > >
