applications using this level must
be prepared to retry transactions due to serialization failures.
In fact, this isolation level works exactly the same as Repeatable
- Read except that it monitors for conditions which could make
+ Read except that it also monitors for conditions which could make
execution of a concurrent set of serializable transactions behave
in a manner inconsistent with all possible serial (one at a time)
executions of those transactions. This monitoring does not
</sect2>
</sect1>
+ <sect1 id="mvcc-serialization-failure-handling">
+ <title>Serialization Failure Handling</title>
+
+ <indexterm>
+ <primary>serialization failure</primary>
+ </indexterm>
+ <indexterm>
+ <primary>retryable error</primary>
+ </indexterm>
+
+ <para>
+ Both Repeatable Read and Serializable isolation levels can produce
+ errors that are designed to prevent serialization anomalies. As
+ previously stated, applications using these levels must be prepared to
+ retry transactions that fail due to serialization errors. Such an
+ error's message text will vary according to the precise circumstances,
+ but it will always have the SQLSTATE code <literal>40001</literal>
+ (<literal>serialization_failure</literal>).
+ </para>
+
+ <para>
+ It may also be advisable to retry deadlock failures.
+ These have the SQLSTATE code <literal>40P01</literal>
+ (<literal>deadlock_detected</literal>).
+ </para>
+
+ <para>
+ In some cases it is also appropriate to retry unique-key failures,
+ which have SQLSTATE code <literal>23505</literal>
+ (<literal>unique_violation</literal>), and exclusion constraint
+ failures, which have SQLSTATE code <literal>23P01</literal>
+ (<literal>exclusion_violation</literal>). For example, if the
+ application selects a new value for a primary key column after
+ inspecting the currently stored keys, it could get a unique-key
+ failure because another application instance selected the same new key
+ concurrently. This is effectively a serialization failure, but the
+ server will not detect it as such because it cannot <quote>see</quote>
+ the connection between the inserted value and the previous reads.
+ There are also some corner cases in which the server will issue a
+ unique-key or exclusion constraint error even though in principle it
+ has enough information to determine that a serialization problem
+ is the underlying cause. While it's recommendable to just
+ retry <literal>serialization_failure</literal> errors unconditionally,
+ more care is needed when retrying these other error codes, since they
+ might represent persistent error conditions rather than transient
+ failures.
+ </para>
+
+ <para>
+ It is important to retry the complete transaction, including all logic
+ that decides which SQL to issue and/or which values to use.
+ Therefore, <productname>PostgreSQL</productname> does not offer an
+ automatic retry facility, since it cannot do so with any guarantee of
+ correctness.
+ </para>
+
+ <para>
+ Transaction retry does not guarantee that the retried transaction will
+ complete; multiple retries may be needed. In cases with very high
+ contention, it is possible that completion of a transaction may take
+ many attempts. In cases involving a conflicting prepared transaction,
+ it may not be possible to make progress until the prepared transaction
+ commits or rolls back.
+ </para>
+ </sect1>
+
<sect1 id="mvcc-caveats">
<title>Caveats</title>