On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 03:27:06PM -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
> I would say that "two such transactions concurrently" heavily implies
> such, no? :)
Like I said, the text tries to explain it--but it remains murky!
---(end of broadcast)---
TI
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "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 + Tran
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Jeroen T. Vermeulen wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 02:07:25PM -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> >
> > "If two such transactions concurrently try to change the balance of
> > account 12345, we clearly want the second transaction to start from the
> > updated version of the acc
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 02:07:25PM -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
> "If two such transactions concurrently try to change the balance of
> account 12345, we clearly want the second transaction to start from the
> updated version of the account's row"
>
> To me, I read this as the first transacti
Chris Bowlby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Would this not create the potention for a dead lock if transaction1 is
> never completed, and still active for an indefinate period of time?
If trans1 later waits (directly or indirectly) for trans2, we'll detect
the deadlock and abort one xact or the oth
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 rea
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, 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 + Tran
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Jeroen T. Vermeulen wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 01:33:48PM -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
> > What happens if I abort on the first transaction? If I'm reading this
>
> Doesn't matter, because your second transaction doesn't read any of the
> changes you're making there
"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?
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 06:54:21PM +0100, Jeroen T. Vermeulen wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 01:33:48PM -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
> > What happens if I abort on the first transaction? If I'm reading this
AFAICS the part about not having inconsistencies refers only to the
spectre of 'ba
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 01:33:48PM -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> What happens if I abort on the first transaction? If I'm reading this
Doesn't matter, because your second transaction doesn't read any of the
changes you're making there--until (and if) that first one commits. The
second trans
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/7.3/static/transaction-iso.html#XACT-READ-COMMITTED
Reading this:
"
BEGIN;
UPDATE accounts SET balance = balance + 100.00 WHERE acctnum = 12345;
UPDATE accounts SET balance = balance - 100.00 WHERE acctnum = 7534;
COMMIT;
If two such transactions concurrently t
12 matches
Mail list logo
