Martha Stewart called it a Good Thing when jdavis-pgsql(at)empires(dot)org (Jeff Davis) wrote:
> I almost think to not supply an MVCC system would break the "I" in ACID,
> would it not? I can't think of any other obvious way to isolate the
> transactions, but on the other hand, wouldn't DB2 want to be ACID
> compliant?

Wrong, wrong, wrong...

MVCC allows an ACID implementation to not need to do a lot of resource
locking.

In the absence of MVCC, you have way more locks outstanding, which
makes it easier for there to be conflicts between lock requests.

In effect, with MVCC, you can do more things concurrently without the
system crumbling due to a surfeit of deadlocks.
-- 
"cbbrowne","@","gmail.com"
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/multiplexor.html
Why isn't phonetic spelled the way it sounds?

In response to

• Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*) at 2005-01-18 22:10:48 from Jeff Davis

pgsql-announce by date

Next:	From: Marc G. Fournier	Date: 2005-01-19 13:02:46
	Subject: PostgreSQL 8.0.0 Released
Previous:	From: Jeff Davis	Date: 2005-01-18 23:01:01
	Subject: Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Neil Conway	Date: 2005-01-19 05:25:43
	Subject: Re: ARC patent
Previous:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2005-01-19 05:07:18
	Subject: Re: Viewupdate: Inherit default expressions from columns

pgsql-patches by date

Next:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2005-01-19 05:30:41
	Subject: Re: patches for OS/2 port
Previous:	From: Neil Conway	Date: 2005-01-19 04:29:44
	Subject: Re: test: pl/pgsql refcursors