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

Re: User-facing aspects of serializable transactions

From: Greg Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, 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 15:57:16
Message-ID: 4136ffa0905280857j79013e72g9cb15f829b703ed@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
>
> Can you cite anywhere that such techniques have been successfully used
> in a production environment

Well there's a reason our docs say: "Such a locking system is complex
to implement and extremely expensive in execution"

> or are you suggesting that we break new
> ground here?  (The techniques I've been assuming are pretty well-worn
> and widely used.)

Well they're well-worn in very different databases which have much
less flexibility in how they access data. In part that inflexibility
comes *from* their decision to implement transaction isolation using
locks and to tie those locks to the indexing infrastructure.

-- 
greg

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-05-28 15:57:39
Subject: Re: Compiler warning cleanup - unitilized const variables, pointer type mismatch
Previous:From: Markus WannerDate: 2009-05-28 15:52:02
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Developer meeting minutes up

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