"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> writes:
>>>> Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
>> we'd break 100,000 existing Java applications if we changed the
> error.
>
> In what way would an application want to treat deadlocks and update
> conflicts differently? Both result from conflicts with concurrent
> transactions and can be retried automatically. It seems like an
> implementation detail with little chance of impact on applications to
> me. Can anyone provide a contrary example or argument?
Well generally deadlocks are treated differently in that they are treated by
rewriting the application to not cause deadlocks.
-- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Get trained by Bruce Momjian - ask me about
EnterpriseDB'sPostgreSQL training!
