Re: User-facing aspects of serializable transactions

From: Greg Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 23:12:40
Message-ID: 4136ffa0905281612w40895bcdw644a7831e80ac454@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 11:49 PM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
> The problem
> is that the cost of a "perfect" predicate locking system is much
> higher than the cost of letting some transaction block or roll back
> for retry.

Surely that depends on how expensive it is to retry the transaction?
Like, how much would it suck to find your big data load abort after 10
hours loading data? And how much if it didn't wasn't even selecting
data which your data load conflicted with.

--
greg

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua Tolley 2009-05-28 23:20:39 Re: Dtrace probes documentation
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-05-28 22:52:21 Re: pg_migrator and an 8.3-compatible tsvector data type