On tirsdag 03 mai 2005, 00:40, Michael Schout wrote:
> Jeffrey W. Baker wrote:
> > It is possible that the FOR UPDATE is spurious. It signals to the
> > database system that this transaction intends to write that row.
> > With PostgreSQL's MVCC transaction isolation system, it's probably
> > not
Jeffrey W. Baker wrote:
> It is possible that the FOR UPDATE is spurious. It signals to the
> database system that this transaction intends to write that row. With
> PostgreSQL's MVCC transaction isolation system, it's probably not
> necessary and may be causing problems.
It definately *is* nec
On Mon, 2005-05-02 at 15:08 -0700, Jeffrey W. Baker wrote:
> It is possible that the FOR UPDATE is spurious. It signals to the
> database system that this transaction intends to write that row. With
> PostgreSQL's MVCC transaction isolation system, it's probably not
> necessary and may be causing
On Fri, 2005-04-29 at 16:50 +0200, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:
> I guess it could be that the use we make of Apache::Session is flawed,
> that we should call an update somewhere, but it works (apparently) with
> the other data stores. It feels like there is something in the
> direction of transactio
Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:
On the surface, the symptom is that for certain pages, it will just sit
and spin at the $self->{materialize_sth}->execute; call in
Apache::Session::Store::Postgres for exactly two minutes, then time
out, and that makes the rest of the app confused, so most things go
boom.
