| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: User-facing aspects of serializable transactions |
| Date: | 2009-05-28 01:08:00 |
| Message-ID: | 1243472880.11796.11.camel@monkey-cat.sm.truviso.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 20:55 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Hmm, what I gathered was that that's not changing any basic semantic
> guarantees (and therefore is okay to control as a GUC). But I haven't
> read the paper so maybe I'm missing something.
On second read of this comment:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-05/msg01128.php
it says "reduce the frequency of serialization anomalies", which doesn't
necessarily mean that it makes new guarantees, I suppose. I should have
gone to the original source.
Anyway, it's a moot point, because apparently that's just a possible
step along the way toward true serializability, and doesn't need to be
separately distinguished.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-05-28 01:09:05 | Re: survey of WAL blocksize changes |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2009-05-28 01:07:15 | Re: User-facing aspects of serializable transactions |