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

Re: Documenting serializable vs snapshot isolation levels

From: "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Documenting serializable vs snapshot isolation levels
Date: 2009-01-02 17:23:57
Message-ID: 603c8f070901020923l46b534e2l9d4e84293ef11521@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
> Not sure about "most".  Referential integrity is a pretty common use
> case, and it is not covered without explicit locking.  Many other
> common use cases are not, either.  I agree many are, and that the rest
> can be worked around easily enough that I wouldn't want to see
> blocking introduced to the degree that non-MVCC databases use for
> serializable access.

What do you mean by referential integrity?  I don't believe you can
construct a foreign key problem at any transaction isolation level.

...Robert

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-01-02 17:30:04
Subject: Custom PGC_POSTMASTER GUC variables ... feasible?
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-01-02 16:01:56
Subject: Re: Significantly larger toast tables on 8.4?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2013 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group