Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 17:18:06 -0400
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@gmail.com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
	Marina Polyakova <m.polyakova@postgrespro.ru>,
	"pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: WIP Patch: Pgbench Serialization and deadlock errors
Message-ID: <20170615211806.sfkpiy2acoavpovl@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: 
 <CACjxUsOfbn72EaH4i_OuzdY-0PUYfg1Y3o8G27tEA8fJOaPQEw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170306-137-4415bd-dirty (1.8.0)
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

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.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


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