Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Simon Riggs wrote: >> If you have a serializable transaction with subtransactions that suffers >> a serializability error it only cancels the current subtransaction. That >> means it's snapshot is still valid and can be used again. By analogy, as >> long as a transaction does not see any data that is inconsistent with >> its snapshot it seems OK for it to continue. So I think it is correct. > > Yeah, you're right. How bizarre.
It was argued this way to me way back when subtransactions were written. Originally I had written it in such a way as to abort the whole transaction, on the rationale that if you're blindly restarting the subtransaction after a serialization error, it would result in a (maybe infinite) loop. I think the reason it only aborts the subxact is that that's what all other errors do, so why would this one act differently. Hmm, now that I think about it, I think it was deadlock errors not serialization errors ... -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
