On Jan7, 2014, at 20:11 , Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com wrote:
Yeah, neither of the provided examples rolled back the read only
transaction itself;
Actually, the fixed version [1] of my example does.
[1]
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/8721aad3-7a3a-4576-b10e-f2cbd1e53...@phlo.org
Florian Pflug f...@phlo.org wrote:
On Jan7, 2014, at 20:11 , Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com wrote:
Yeah, neither of the provided examples rolled back the read only
transaction itself;
Actually, the fixed version [1] of my example does.
[1]
AK alk...@gmail.com wrote:
I cannot have a read-only transaction fail because of
serialization anomalies. Can someone show me a working example
please?
A common case is a read-only transaction reading a closed batch
without seeing all of its entries.
On Jan7, 2014, at 00:38 , Jim Nasby j...@nasby.net wrote:
This email and the previous one are an awesome bit of information,
can we add it to the docs somehow? Even if it's just dumping the
emails into a wiki page and referencing it?
Most of what I wrote there can be found in README-SSE, I
On Jan6, 2014, at 20:41 , AK alk...@gmail.com wrote:
If two transactions both read and write, I can easily reproduce the
following: could not serialize access due to read/write dependencies among
transactions. However, the 9.3 documentation says that When relying on
Serializable transactions
