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

Re: User-facing aspects of serializable transactions

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Greg Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: "Jeff Davis" <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, "<pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: User-facing aspects of serializable transactions
Date: 2009-05-28 23:32:04
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Greg Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> 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.
That's certainly a fair question.  The prototype implementation of the
technique gave preference to aborting the "pivot" transaction, which
by definition has both read data modified by another transaction and
written data read by another transaction; so as you haven't read other
data, you would be safe in the particular case you cite.  They did
mention that it might be desirable to use some other bias, such as the
transaction with the earlier start time or which has a higher value
for some "work accomplished" metric.

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2009-05-28 23:32:05
Subject: Re: pg_migrator and an 8.3-compatible tsvector data type
Previous:From: Joshua TolleyDate: 2009-05-28 23:20:39
Subject: Re: Dtrace probes documentation

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