Re: Compatibility GUC for serializable

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Compatibility GUC for serializable
Date: 2011-01-10 18:35:49
Message-ID: 4D2B5185.7060804@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 1/10/11 10:28 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> The techniques we use in our shop wouldn't interact badly with SSI,
> and I'm having trouble picturing what would. Sure, some of these
> techniques would no longer be needed, and would only add overhead if
> SSI was there.

Yeah? Well, you have more experience than I do in this; my clients have
tended to use SELECT FOR UPDATE instead of SERIALIZABLE. I'll defer to
you if you feel reasonably confident that breakage won't result.

And as I said, I'm unsure of how many people are using SERIALIZABLE in
any mission-critical context right now.

--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2011-01-10 18:47:17 Re: Compatibility GUC for serializable
Previous Message Kevin Grittner 2011-01-10 18:28:16 Re: Compatibility GUC for serializable