Re: User-facing aspects of serializable transactions

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Greg Stark <greg(dot)stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
Subject: Re: User-facing aspects of serializable transactions
Date: 2009-05-28 12:20:13
Message-ID: 200905281520.13620.peter_e@gmx.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thursday 28 May 2009 04:49:19 Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah. The fundamental problem with all the "practical" approaches I've
> heard of is that they only work for a subset of possible predicates
> (possible WHERE clauses). The idea that you get true serializability
> only if your queries are phrased just so is ... icky. So icky that
> it doesn't sound like an improvement over what we have.

Is it even possible to have a predicate locking implementation that can verify
whether an arbitrary predicate implies another arbitrary predicate? And this
isn't constraint exclusion, where it is acceptable to have false negatives.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2009-05-28 12:24:21 Re: search_path vs extensions
Previous Message Zdenek Kotala 2009-05-28 11:51:07 Re: Compiler warning cleanup - unitilized const variables, pointer type mismatch