Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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


pgsql-hackers by date

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

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group