Re: Compatibility GUC for serializable

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "Ron Mayer" <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Compatibility GUC for serializable
Date: 2011-01-12 15:54:07
Message-ID: 4D2D7A3F0200002500039333@gw.wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com> wrote:

> That Survey's missing one important distinction for that
> discussion.
>
> Do you take the the current survey answer
>
> "Yes, we depend on it for production code"
>
> to imply
>
> "Yes, we depend on actual real SERIALIZABLE transactions in
> production and will panic if you tell us we're not getting
> that"
>
> or
>
> "Yes, we depend on the legacy not-quite SERIALIZABLE
> transactions in production and don't want real serializable
> transactions"

Yeah, I was reluctant to reply to that survey because we rely on it
to the extent that it works now, but it would not break anything if
we dropped in a real SERIALIZABLE implementation. I fear that
choosing the "depend on it" answer would imply "don't want changes".

-Kevin

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2011-01-12 16:00:30 Re: Add support for logging the current role
Previous Message Robert Haas 2011-01-12 15:46:19 Re: Add support for logging the current role