From: | Syan Tan <kittylitter(at)people(dot)net(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | kittylitter(at)people(dot)net(dot)au, 'Trevor Talbot' <quension(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: atomic commit; begin for long running transactions , in combination with savepoint. |
Date: | 2007-10-17 12:34:22 |
Message-ID: | 1312.1192624462@people.net.au |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
my understanding was it used more resources than read committed
because it keeps track of the version id of rows selected
so far in a transaction, "transaction-level consistency",
so it has the potential to do the xmin co-selecting , and checking,
if it were a transaction isolation level in postgres.
google found my reference, and the reference mentioned it was
different from serializable.
On Mon Oct 15 9:09 , "Trevor Talbot" sent:
>On 10/15/07, Syan Tan wrote:
>
>> >Also keep in mind that MVCC is not the only way to implement
>> >transactions; pure locking is more common in other databases. In the
>> >locking model, most transactions prevent others from writing until
>> >after they are finished. Rows simply can't have different versions
>> >(and of course concurrent performance is awful).
>>
>> what about postgresql doing something like snapshot isolation level as per
>> the enemy M$ ?
>
>SQL Server is normally a pure locking database; from what I can tell,
>its snapshot isolation level adds a limited form of MVCC above that,
>making its concurrent behavior closer to PostgreSQL's:
>http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms345124\(d=printer\).aspx
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bill Moran | 2007-10-17 12:53:25 | Re: Possibilities of Fine Grained Access Control? |
Previous Message | Sergey Konoplev | 2007-10-17 11:46:24 | Re: pg_cancel_backend() does not work with buzz queries |