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

Re: incoherent view of serializable transactions

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

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2008-12-23 16:10:05
Subject: Re: incoherent view of serializable transactions
Previous:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2008-12-23 15:42:50
Subject: Synchronous replication, reading WAL for sending

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group