On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 4:33 AM, Dan Ports <drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 08:54:31AM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> Even though this didn't show any difference in Dan's performance
>> tests, it seems like reasonable insurance against creating a new
>> bottleneck in very high concurrency situations.
>> Dan, do you have a patch for this, or should I create one?
> Sure, patch is attached.
Reading the code, IIUC, we check for RW conflicts after each write but
only if the writer is running a serializable transaction.
Am I correct in thinking that there is zero impact of SSI if nobody is
running a serializable transaction?
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Josh Berkus||Date: 2011-04-27 17:48:14|
|Subject: Re: "stored procedures" - use cases?|
|Previous:||From: Magnus Hagander||Date: 2011-04-27 17:17:50|
|Subject: Re: timeline garbage in pg_basebackup (was gcc 4.6 warnings -Wunused-but-set-variable)|