Re: Review: Row-level Locks & SERIALIZABLE transactions, postgres vs. Oracle

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
Cc: <drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu>,<fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Review: Row-level Locks & SERIALIZABLE transactions, postgres vs. Oracle
Date: 2010-07-17 19:09:06
Message-ID: 4C41B9820200002500033810@gw.wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Joe Conway wrote:

> Should I be installing Florian's patch in addition to yours when I
> start testing?

There's some manual fix-up needed, primarily because we need to
differentiate between SERIALIZABLE and REPEATABLE READ isolation
levels, and therefore replaced the IsXactIsoLevelSerializable macro
with IsXactIsoLevelXactSnapshotBased and
IsXactIsoLevelFullySerializable. If you can wait until tomorrow,
I'll create a merged patch for you and confirm that it passes the
modified Florian's pgbench test (with the FOR SHARED clause
removed). I'll include a crude hack to pgbench I had to use to test
this, with an explanation of why it was needed. I'm still trying to
put together better testing techniques for the long term.

> Also, where can I get the latest and greatest version of your
> patch?

There's always the git repository, but I'll post a new patch
tomorrow, based on what I've recently found.

-Kevin

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-07-17 19:19:05 Re: Review: Patch for phypot - Pygmy Hippotause
Previous Message Selena Deckelmann 2010-07-17 19:02:12 Re: Broken due to CVS branching? .bki has wrong info for build