Re: NT + deadlock intended behaviour ? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: NT + deadlock intended behaviour ?
Date
Msg-id 20040718053347.GA3449@dcc.uchile.cl
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: NT + deadlock intended behaviour ?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 01:16:17AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@dcc.uchile.cl> writes:
> > First of all, let me point that the behavior on deadlock has been agreed
> > to change.  Instead of only aborting the innermost transaction, it will
> > abort the whole transaction tree.
> 
> Who agreed to that?

Huh?  I showed this example to Bruce on IRC several days ago, while you
were away -- he said (or at least I understood) that he talked to you
and you agreed to this behavior.

Maybe I was confused about what he said.  This is a small change from
the implementation POV anyway (two lines patch).

-- 
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>)
"El número de instalaciones de UNIX se ha elevado a 10,
y se espera que este número aumente" (UPM, 1972)



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: NT + deadlock intended behaviour ?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: NT + deadlock intended behaviour ?