Re: User-facing aspects of serializable transactions

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Greg Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: "Jeff Davis" <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, "<pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: User-facing aspects of serializable transactions
Date: 2009-05-28 23:32:04
Message-ID: 4A1ED8A4.EE98.0025.1@wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Greg Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:

> 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.

That's certainly a fair question. The prototype implementation of the
technique gave preference to aborting the "pivot" transaction, which
by definition has both read data modified by another transaction and
written data read by another transaction; so as you haven't read other
data, you would be safe in the particular case you cite. They did
mention that it might be desirable to use some other bias, such as the
transaction with the earlier start time or which has a higher value
for some "work accomplished" metric.

-Kevin

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2009-05-28 23:32:05 Re: pg_migrator and an 8.3-compatible tsvector data type
Previous Message Joshua Tolley 2009-05-28 23:20:39 Re: Dtrace probes documentation