| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Compatibility GUC for serializable |
| Date: | 2011-01-11 00:55:57 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTimrjA6j-emTTzSU0EMHRQuCyTY_2FvrUXUkC37s@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> I'm going to disagree here. For a large, sprawling, legacy application
> changing SERIALIZABLE to REPEATABLE READ in every place in the code
> which might call it can be prohibitively difficult.
What makes you think that would be necessary? That'd require someone
(a) using serializable, and (b) wanting it to be broken? I think the
most common reaction would be "thank goodness, this thing actually
works now".
> Further, many such
> applications would be written with workarounds for broken serializable
> behavior, workarounds which would behave unpredictably after an upgrade.
Uh... you want to support that with an example? Because my first
reaction is "that's FUD".
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-01-11 01:04:19 | Re: Compatibility GUC for serializable |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2011-01-11 00:52:40 | Re: Compatibility GUC for serializable |