| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | Emmanuel Cecchet <manu(at)frogthinker(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: incoherent view of serializable transactions |
| Date: | 2008-12-23 15:47:37 |
| Message-ID: | 49510819.40202@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Kevin Grittner wrote:
>>>> Emmanuel Cecchet <manu(at)frogthinker(dot)org> 12/23/08 8:59 AM >>>
>> I am somewhat mystified by the interest some people still have in
>> serializable transactions. Why don't users program the application to
>
>> deal with a lower isolation (actually I think they do)?
>
> There really are good reasons. I'm not up to going through that now,
> but if there is genuine interest in the topic perhaps I can follow up
> later.
Well, the reason why people rely on isolation provided by database in
general is to make it easier to develop applications. One less thing to
worry about. That's why people use RDBMS, transactions, etc. to begin with.
>> But I am probably missing the point which was to fix the doc?
>
> Thank you!
If you have a concrete suggestion (= patch) for the documentation, I'm
all ears.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2008-12-23 16:10:05 | Re: incoherent view of serializable transactions |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2008-12-23 15:42:50 | Synchronous replication, reading WAL for sending |