Craig Ringer wrote: > > Why? They can be serialized. The outcome would be exactly the same > > if session 2 completed before session 1 began. > > Hmm. Good point; so long as *either* ordering is valid it's fine, it's > only when *both* orderings are invalid that a serialization failure > would occur. For some reason I had myself thinking that if a conflict > could occur in either ordering the tx would fail, which wouldn't really > be desirable and isn't how it works. > > BTW, the issue with the underlying question is that their "name" column > is unique. They expected to get a serialization failure on duplicate > insert into "name", not a unique constraint violation. The question > wasn't "why doesn't this fail" but "Why does this fail with a different > error than I expected". Not that the question made that particularly clear. But the unasked question is also answered, right? Yours, Laurenz Albe -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
