| From: | Greg Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, "<pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: User-facing aspects of serializable transactions |
| Date: | 2009-05-28 15:57:16 |
| Message-ID: | 4136ffa0905280857j79013e72g9cb15f829b703ed@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
>
> Can you cite anywhere that such techniques have been successfully used
> in a production environment
Well there's a reason our docs say: "Such a locking system is complex
to implement and extremely expensive in execution"
> or are you suggesting that we break new
> ground here? (The techniques I've been assuming are pretty well-worn
> and widely used.)
Well they're well-worn in very different databases which have much
less flexibility in how they access data. In part that inflexibility
comes *from* their decision to implement transaction isolation using
locks and to tie those locks to the indexing infrastructure.
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-05-28 15:57:39 | Re: Compiler warning cleanup - unitilized const variables, pointer type mismatch |
| Previous Message | Markus Wanner | 2009-05-28 15:52:02 | Re: PostgreSQL Developer meeting minutes up |