| From: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu |
| Subject: | Re: SSI, simplified |
| Date: | 2011-01-26 13:27:44 |
| Message-ID: | 87aainhk1b.fsf@hi-media-techno.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Not sure how to handle that. My understanding is that we are replacing
> the old Serializable mode with the new Serializable mode. The old way
> works, but the new way doesn't. I don't think we should throw an error;
> we just need to document that it works the old way on HS and the new way
> everywhere else. Maybe that's inconsistent, but throwing errors isn't
> useful in places where there didn't used to be any.
Well if you want the old behaviour you can ask for REPEATABLE READ and
have it. Granted, that means you have to edit the application code that
talks to the Hot Standby, but surely you want to edit the same code when
it talks to the master to ask the proper level of serialisation, which
just changed underneath you?
Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-01-26 13:40:28 | Re: SSI, simplified |
| Previous Message | Gurjeet Singh | 2011-01-26 13:01:37 | Re: Patch to add a primary key using an existing index |