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

Re: User-facing aspects of serializable transactions

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
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 00:55:18
Message-ID: 22144.1243472118@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 20:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> * Anything else you want to control should be a GUC, as long as it
>> doesn't affect any correctness properties.

> But that still leaves out another behavior which avoids some of the
> serialization anomalies currently possible, but still does not guarantee
> true serializability (that is: implementation of the paper's technique
> sans predicate locking). Is that behavior useful enough to include?

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.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2009-05-28 01:00:03
Subject: Re: User-facing aspects of serializable transactions
Previous:From: Jeff DavisDate: 2009-05-28 00:52:05
Subject: Re: User-facing aspects of serializable transactions

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