Message-ID: <4E16269C.1000503@enterprisedb.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 00:35:24 +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
CC: Dan Ports <drkp@csail.mit.edu>,
	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>
	<4E162628.6080100@enterprisedb.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E162628.6080100@enterprisedb.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 08.07.2011 00:33, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> 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?

Oh, never mind, I read the test backwards. They are included, as the 
patch stands. I'll commit this too..

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