Re: Update on true serializable techniques in MVCC

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: <nicolas(dot)barbier(at)gmail(dot)com>,<pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Update on true serializable techniques in MVCC
Date: 2009-12-17 13:38:37
Message-ID: 4B29DFFD020000250002D6A1@gw.wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Nicolas Barbier wrote:
> Therefore, with next-key locking you better don't have too many table
> scans if you want to have any concurrent transactions.

Well, I would say that you don't want too many table scans on heavily
updated tables if you don't want too many serialization failures. Keep
in
mind that the SIREAD locks would not block anything. A dangerous
structure,
involving two adjacent rw dependencies, must be found before anything is
rolled back.

-Kevin

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Rod Taylor 2009-12-17 14:02:57 NOT IN Doesn't use Anti Joins?
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2009-12-17 13:38:27 Re: Hot Standby and prepared transactions