On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Kevin Grittner wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 2:16 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: >> > On 2017-06-14 11:48:25 +0300, Marina Polyakova wrote: > >> >> P.S. Does this use case (do not retry transaction with serialization or >> >> deadlock failure) is most interesting or failed transactions should be >> >> retried (and how much times if there seems to be no hope of success...)? >> > >> > I can't quite parse that sentence, could you restate? >> >> The way I read it was that the most interesting solution would retry >> a transaction from the beginning on a serialization failure or >> deadlock failure. > > As far as I understand her proposal, it is exactly the opposite -- if a > transaction fails, it is discarded. And this P.S. note is asking > whether this is a good idea, or would we prefer that failing > transactions are retried. > > I think it's pretty obvious that transactions that failed with > some serializability problem should be retried.
+1 for retry with reporting of retry rates -- Thomas Munro http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
