| 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, Dan Ports <drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu> |
| Subject: | Re: SSI and Hot Standby |
| Date: | 2011-01-20 04:43:58 |
| Message-ID: | 1295498638.11513.93.camel@jdavis |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 19:05 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> If we don't do something like this, do we just provide REPEATABLE
> READ on the standby as the strictest level of transaction isolation?
> If so, do we generate an error on a request for SERIALIZABLE, warn
> and provide degraded behavior, or just quietly give them REPEATABLE
> READ behavior?
>
> Thoughts?
Hopefully there is a better option available. We don't want to silently
give wrong results.
Maybe we should bring back the compatibility GUC? It could throw an
error unless the user sets the compatibility GUC to turn "serializable"
into "repeatable read".
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-01-20 04:50:12 | Re: ALTER TYPE 1: recheck index-based constraints |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2011-01-20 04:23:38 | Re: pg_basebackup for streaming base backups |