On May 13, 2011, at 2:07 AM, Alexey Klyukin wrote: > On May 13, 2011, at 1:28 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> >> We're not likely to do that, first because it's randomly different from >> the handling of every other system catalog update, and second because it >> would serialize all updates on this catalog, and probably create >> deadlock cases that don't exist now. (BTW, as the patch is given I'd >> expect it to still fail, though perhaps with lower probability than >> before. For this to actually stop all such cases, you'd have to hold >> the lock till commit, which greatly increases the risks of deadlock.) > .... >> >> I see no particular reason why conflicting updates like those *shouldn't* >> be expected to fail occasionally. > > Excellent question, I don't have enough context to properly answer that (other > than a guess that an unexpected transaction rollback is too unexpected :)) > Let me ask the customer first.
The original use case is sporadical failures of some internal unit tests due to the error message in subject. -- Alexey Klyukin The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
