Message-ID: <4E162628.6080100@enterprisedb.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 00:33:28 +0300
From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; fi-FI;
	rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110606 Icedove/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dan Ports <drkp@csail.mit.edu>
CC: Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: SSI atomic commit
References: <4E12FDA8020000250003EFC1@gw.wicourts.gov>
	<4E15D48A.7080203@enterprisedb.com>
	<4E159B5C020000250003F063@gw.wicourts.gov>
	<4E160005.1020300@enterprisedb.com>
	<4E161881.6090800@enterprisedb.com>
	<20110707212159.GF76634@csail.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20110707212159.GF76634@csail.mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 08.07.2011 00:21, Dan Ports wrote:
> We should also apply the attached patch, which corrects a minor issue
> with the conditions for flagging transactions that could potentially
> make a snapshot unsafe.
>
> There's a small window wherein a transaction is committed but not yet
> on the finished list, and we shouldn't flag it as a potential conflict
> if so. We can also skip adding a doomed transaction to the list of
> possible conflicts because we know it won't commit.

Hmm, it's now also possible for the transaction to be prepared, and 
already visible to others, but not yet flagged as committed. Shouldn't 
those be included too?

-- 
   Heikki Linnakangas
   EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com