On May 13, 2011, at 2:07 AM, Alexey Klyukin wrote:
> On May 13, 2011, at 1:28 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>>
>> We're not likely to do that, first because it's randomly different from
>> the handling of every other system catalog update, and second because it
>> would serialize all updates on this catalog, and probably create
>> deadlock cases that don't exist now. (BTW, as the patch is given I'd
>> expect it to still fail, though perhaps with lower probability than
>> before. For this to actually stop all such cases, you'd have to hold
>> the lock till commit, which greatly increases the risks of deadlock.)
>
....
>>
>> I see no particular reason why conflicting updates like those *shouldn't*
>> be expected to fail occasionally.
>
> Excellent question, I don't have enough context to properly answer that (other
> than a guess that an unexpected transaction rollback is too unexpected :))
> Let me ask the customer first.
The original use case is sporadical failures of some internal unit tests due
to the error message in subject.
--
Alexey Klyukin
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
