| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Dan Ports <drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Serializable Snapshot Isolation |
| Date: | 2010-09-14 19:48:50 |
| Message-ID: | 4C8FD1A2.9080704@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 14/09/10 19:34, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Attached is the latest Serializable Snapshot Isolation (SSI) patch.
Great work! A year ago I thought it would be impossible to have a true
serializable mode in PostgreSQL because of the way we do MVCC, and now
we have a patch.
At a quick read-through, the code looks very tidy and clear now. Some
comments:
Should add a citation to Cahill's work this is based on. Preferably with
a hyperlink. A short description of how the predicate locks help to
implement serializable mode would be nice too. I haven't read Cahill's
papers, and I'm left wondering what the RW conflicts and dependencies
are, when you're supposed to grab predicate locks etc.
If a page- or relation level SILOCK is taken, is it possible to get
false conflicts? Ie. a transaction is rolled back because it modified a
tuple on a page where some other transaction modified another tuple,
even though there's no dependency between the two.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-09-14 19:51:56 | Re: top-level DML under CTEs |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-09-14 19:10:11 | Pseudoconstant quals versus the join removal patch |