Re: Serializable implementation

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Serializable implementation
Date: 2010-01-08 15:00:37
Message-ID: 603c8f071001080700n21272497h6a4e3397a4e34c75@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
> Opinions?

I think anything you decide about how to invoke the different
isolation levels will be easy to change later to meet whatever the
consensus of the community is at that time. I wouldn't spend any time
or energy on it now. For purposes of your prototype patch, using
REPEATABLE READ for the current serializable and SERIALIZABLE for the
new behavior will be plenty good enough.

...Robert

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tim Bunce 2010-01-08 15:01:07 Feature patch 1 for plperl [PATCH]
Previous Message Robert Haas 2010-01-08 14:54:16 Re: Serializable Isolation without blocking