From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: User-facing aspects of serializable transactions |
Date: | 2009-05-28 01:00:53 |
Message-ID: | 1243472453.11796.6.camel@monkey-cat.sm.truviso.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 19:51 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > 1. implementation of the paper's technique sans predicate locking,
> > that would avoid more serialization anomalies but not all?
>
> I saw that as a step along the way to support for fully serializable
> transactions. If covered by a "migration path" GUC which defaulted to
> current behavior, it would allow testing of all of the code except the
> predicate lock tracking (before the predicate locking code was
> created), in order to give proof of concept, check performance impact
> of that part of the code, etc. I wasn't thinking that it would be a
> useful long-term option without the addition of the predicate locks.
>
OK, if that behavior is not ultimately useful, then I retract my
question.
We still need to know whether to use a GUC at all -- it won't actually
break applications to offer true serializability, it will only impact
performance.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2009-05-28 01:01:16 | Re: search_path vs extensions |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2009-05-28 01:00:03 | Re: User-facing aspects of serializable transactions |