Craig Ringer wrote:
> > Why? They can be serialized. The outcome would be exactly the same
> > if session 2 completed before session 1 began.
>
> Hmm. Good point; so long as *either* ordering is valid it's fine, it's
> only when *both* orderings are invalid that a serialization failure
> would occur. For some reason I had myself thinking that if a conflict
> could occur in either ordering the tx would fail, which wouldn't
really
> be desirable and isn't how it works.
>
> BTW, the issue with the underlying question is that their "name"
column
> is unique. They expected to get a serialization failure on duplicate
> insert into "name", not a unique constraint violation. The question
> wasn't "why doesn't this fail" but "Why does this fail with a
different
> error than I expected". Not that the question made that particularly
clear.
But the unasked question is also answered, right?
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
