| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <greg(dot)stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Hot Standby (v9d) |
| Date: | 2009-01-23 21:57:03 |
| Message-ID: | 1232747823.3578.247.camel@dell.linuxdev.us.dell.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 20:13 +0000, Greg Stark wrote:
> > If you have a serializable transaction with subtransactions that
> > suffers
> > a serializability error it only cancels the current subtransaction.
>
> This is a complete tangent to your work, but I wonder if this is
> really right. I mean it's not as if we could have srrialized the
> transaction as a whole with respect to whatever other transaction we
> failed.
Isn't this back to the discussion about PostgreSQL serializability
versus true serializability?
I agree that's not true serializability.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-01-23 22:32:55 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Automatic view update rules Bernd Helmle |
| Previous Message | Euler Taveira de Oliveira | 2009-01-23 21:55:59 | Re: New pg_dump patch -- document statistics collector exception (REVISED PATCH) |