Re: [HACKERS] WIP Patch: Pgbench Serialization and deadlock errors
От | Thomas Munro |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] WIP Patch: Pgbench Serialization and deadlock errors |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAEepm=3TRTc9Fy=fdFThDa4STzPTR6w=RGfYEPikEkc-Lcd+Mw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] WIP Patch: Pgbench Serialization and deadlock errors (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Kevin Grittner wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 2:16 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote: >> > On 2017-06-14 11:48:25 +0300, Marina Polyakova wrote: > >> >> P.S. Does this use case (do not retry transaction with serialization or >> >> deadlock failure) is most interesting or failed transactions should be >> >> retried (and how much times if there seems to be no hope of success...)? >> > >> > I can't quite parse that sentence, could you restate? >> >> The way I read it was that the most interesting solution would retry >> a transaction from the beginning on a serialization failure or >> deadlock failure. > > As far as I understand her proposal, it is exactly the opposite -- if a > transaction fails, it is discarded. And this P.S. note is asking > whether this is a good idea, or would we prefer that failing > transactions are retried. > > I think it's pretty obvious that transactions that failed with > some serializability problem should be retried. +1 for retry with reporting of retry rates -- Thomas Munro http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: