On Tuesday, August 13, 2024 7:33 PM Michail Nikolaev <michail.nikol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think this is an independent issue which can be discussed separately in the > original thread[1], and I have replied to that thread. >Thanks! But it seems like this part is still relevant to the current thread: > > It also seems possible that a conflict could be resolved by a concurrent > > update > > before the call to CheckAndReportConflict, which means there's no guarantee > > that the conflict will be reported correctly. Should we be concerned about > > this? This is as expected, and we have documented this in the code comments. We don't need to report a conflict if the conflicting tuple has been removed or updated due to concurrent transaction. The same is true if the transaction that inserted the conflicting tuple is rolled back before CheckAndReportConflict(). We don't consider such cases as a conflict. Best Regards, Hou zj
