Would this not create the potention for a dead lock if transaction1 is never completed, and still active for an indefinate period of time?
On Thu, 2004-01-29 at 14:06, Tom Lane wrote: > "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > What happens if I abort on the first transaction? If I'm reading this > > right, if Trans2 does the exact same as above, and COMMITs before Trans1 > > Aborts, the value of balance becomes +200 (Trans2 + Trans1) ... but what > > happens when Trans1 ABORTS? Trans2 believes its COMMIT worked, but > > ABORTng Trans1 will rollback to the original value, no? > > If trans2 is the second to get to the row, it will *wait* until trans1 > either commits or aborts, and then use the new or old version of the row > accordingly. The scenario you are thinking of can't happen. > > regards, tom lane > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings -- Chris Bowlby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PostgreSQL Inc. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
