MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 13:38:07 +0300
From: Marina Polyakova <m.polyakova@postgrespro.ru>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@gmail.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
 pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>
Subject: Re: WIP Patch: Pgbench Serialization and deadlock errors
Organization: Postgres Professional
In-Reply-To: <20170615211806.sfkpiy2acoavpovl@alvherre.pgsql>
References: <20170615211806.sfkpiy2acoavpovl@alvherre.pgsql>
Message-ID: <11ab8c4ff2cc022ac3e43a4652b958ce@postgrespro.ru>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.2.4
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

>> >> 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.

Yes, I have meant this, thank you!

> I think it's pretty obvious that transactions that failed with
> some serializability problem should be retried.

Thank you voted :)

-- 
Marina Polyakova
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers