| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Paul A Jungwirth <pj(at)illuminatedcomputing(dot)com>, 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: | 2026-09-14 14:19:41 |
| Message-ID: | 62bf70cc-dc33-4188-8070-a8c177bb61de@eisentraut.org |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 14.09.26 15:52, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 12, 2026 at 9:18 AM Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> wrote:
>>
>> 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?
>
> [RMT hat]
>
> I don't quite understand the conclusion here. What are you proposing to do?
I was trying to nudge toward reverting without saying it. ;-)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Melanie Plageman | 2026-09-14 14:22:53 | Re: Opportunistic pruning is lost under direct io, and nothing shows it |
| Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2026-09-14 14:18:16 | Re: fixes for a few GUC descriptions |