Re: FOR PORTION OF code review

From: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>
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 13:52:41
Message-ID: CAAKRu_Z=JMj8ahVtGSP8Fh00MK4ph1y8i52_Qt1jW=LXeUUEGg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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?

- Melanie

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message shihao zhong 2026-09-14 13:53:33 Re: Opportunistic pruning is lost under direct io, and nothing shows it
Previous Message Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) 2026-09-14 13:52:32 RE: Distinguish publication exclusions in object addresses