Re: Compatibility GUC for serializable

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Compatibility GUC for serializable
Date: 2011-01-10 20:50:23
Message-ID: 4D2B1CAF020000250003921C@gw.wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> I think we've learned over the years that GUCs that significantly
> change semantics can be foot-guns. I'm not sure exactly how
> dangerous this one would be

I didn't respond to this at first because the idea seemed DOA, but
with Josh's concerns I guess I should answer this question.

With the patch, SERIALIZABLE transactions run exactly as they did
before, and as REPEATABLE READ continue to run, except that they are
monitored for read-write conflict patterns which can cause
serialization anomalies. This monitoring doesn't introduce any new
blocking. The only behavior change is that there are additional
serialization failures when the monitoring detects dangerous
structures in the rw-conflicts among transactions. The proposed GUC
would suppress the monitoring in SERIALIZABLE mode and avoid the new
serialization failures, thereby providing legacy behavior --
anomalies and all.

-Kevin

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Magnus Hagander 2011-01-10 20:54:01 pgsql: Set process title to indicate base backup is running
Previous Message Stefan Kaltenbrunner 2011-01-10 20:48:30 Re: Streaming base backups