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: Greg Stark <greg(dot)stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, "<pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: User-facing aspects of serializable transactions
Date: 2009-05-28 01:49:19
Message-ID: 23417.1243475359@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Greg Stark <greg(dot)stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Without any real way to represent predicates this is all pie in the  
> sky. The reason we don't have predicate locking is because of this  
> problem which it sounds like we're no closer to solving.

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.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Greg StarkDate: 2009-05-28 01:57:20
Subject: Re: User-facing aspects of serializable transactions
Previous:From: andyDate: 2009-05-28 01:43:00
Subject: sun blade 1000 donation

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