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

Re: incoherent view of serializable transactions

From: Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Emmanuel Cecchet <manu(at)frogthinker(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: incoherent view of serializable transactions
Date: 2008-12-24 23:46:17
Message-ID: 4952C9C9.5050602@cheapcomplexdevices.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas wrote:
>> ... serializable transaction ...
> If we were to construct a database that had one giant lock for the
> entire database so that only a single query could execute at one time,
> transactions would be serializable (because they'd in fact be
> serialized).  However, performance would suck.  

I wonder if this giant-lock-for-isolation-level-serializable
is a mode postgres should support.  ISTM it would meet the
letter of the spec, and at least some of the people using
"transaction isolation level serializable" are doing so precisely
because they *want* the database to deal with all possible
serialization issues, and accepting performance penalties.


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2008-12-24 23:53:35
Subject: Re: incoherent view of serializable transactions
Previous:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2008-12-24 22:58:29
Subject: Re: parallel restore vs. windows

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