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

Re: incoherent view of serializable transactions

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(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" <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 23:53:35
Message-ID: EF51FA30-452A-44C8-835F-DB55C95A72CD@gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Dec 24, 2008, at 6:46 PM, Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>  
wrote:

> 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.

No. :-)

Cheers,

...Robert

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: KaiGai KoheiDate: 2008-12-25 00:05:07
Subject: Re: [idea] a copied relkind in pg_attribute
Previous:From: Ron MayerDate: 2008-12-24 23:46:17
Subject: Re: incoherent view of serializable transactions

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