Simon Riggs wrote:
> If you have a serializable transaction with subtransactions that suffers
> a serializability error it only cancels the current subtransaction. That
> means it's snapshot is still valid and can be used again. By analogy, as
> long as a transaction does not see any data that is inconsistent with
> its snapshot it seems OK for it to continue. So I think it is correct.
Yeah, you're right. How bizarre.
> (I was sorely tempted to make it "snapshot too old", as a joke).
Yeah, that is a very describing message, actually. If there wasn't any
precedence to that, I believe we might have came up with exactly that
message ourselves.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
