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: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 23:12:40
Message-ID: 4136ffa0905281612w40895bcdw644a7831e80ac454@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 11:49 PM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
> The problem
> is that the cost of a "perfect" predicate locking system is much
> higher than the cost of letting some transaction block or roll back
> for retry.

Surely that depends on how expensive it is to retry the transaction?
Like, how much would it suck to find your big data load abort after 10
hours loading data? And how much if it didn't wasn't even selecting
data which your data load conflicted with.

-- 
greg

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Joshua TolleyDate: 2009-05-28 23:20:39
Subject: Re: Dtrace probes documentation
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-05-28 22:52:21
Subject: Re: pg_migrator and an 8.3-compatible tsvector data type

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