Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: User-facing aspects of serializable transactions

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: User-facing aspects of serializable transactions
Date: 2009-05-28 01:00:53
Message-ID: 1243472453.11796.6.camel@monkey-cat.sm.truviso.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 19:51 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
>  
> > 1. implementation of the paper's technique sans predicate locking,
> > that would avoid more serialization anomalies but not all?
>  
> I saw that as a step along the way to support for fully serializable
> transactions.  If covered by a "migration path" GUC which defaulted to
> current behavior, it would allow testing of all of the code except the
> predicate lock tracking (before the predicate locking code was
> created), in order to give proof of concept, check performance impact
> of that part of the code, etc.  I wasn't thinking that it would be a
> useful long-term option without the addition of the predicate locks.
>  

OK, if that behavior is not ultimately useful, then I retract my
question.

We still need to know whether to use a GUC at all -- it won't actually
break applications to offer true serializability, it will only impact
performance.

Regards,
	Jeff Davis


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2009-05-28 01:01:16
Subject: Re: search_path vs extensions
Previous:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2009-05-28 01:00:03
Subject: Re: User-facing aspects of serializable transactions

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group