On Thursday 28 May 2009 04:49:19 Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah. The fundamental problem with all the "practical" approaches I've
> heard of is that they only work for a subset of possible predicates
> (possible WHERE clauses). The idea that you get true serializability
> only if your queries are phrased just so is ... icky. So icky that
> it doesn't sound like an improvement over what we have.
Is it even possible to have a predicate locking implementation that can verify
whether an arbitrary predicate implies another arbitrary predicate? And this
isn't constraint exclusion, where it is acceptable to have false negatives.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Stephen Frost||Date: 2009-05-28 12:24:21|
|Subject: Re: search_path vs extensions|
|Previous:||From: Zdenek Kotala||Date: 2009-05-28 11:51:07|
|Subject: Re: Compiler warning cleanup - unitilized const variables,
pointer type mismatch|