Re: FOR PORTION OF code review

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Paul A Jungwirth <pj(at)illuminatedcomputing(dot)com>
Cc: rmt(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: FOR PORTION OF code review
Date: 2026-09-12 13:18:28
Message-ID: 5061be14-4d3c-4966-b6d3-c07efddbd382@eisentraut.org
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 11.09.26 20:14, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Not having a successful workaround makes it even more of a problem.
>>
>> Rather than forbidding READ COMMITTED at all, I think we should raise
>> a serialization failure. Then the user can retry.
> Personally I don't find that it's a convincing feature with that
> limitation.

I think we can explore different solutions, but probably not in the week
before the (hopefully) last beta?

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Grigorev Jurij 2026-09-12 13:26:36 Re: [PATCH] libpq: Add PQpassfileLookup()
Previous Message Jeevan Chalke 2026-09-12 13:18:23 Re: ON EMPTY clause for aggregate and window functions