Re: "Strong sides of MySQL" talk from PgDay16Russia, translated

From: Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: samokhvalov(at)gmail(dot)com, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: "Strong sides of MySQL" talk from PgDay16Russia, translated
Date: 2016-07-29 13:17:02
Message-ID: CACjxUsPTEq=L1M9=cJCaQ3hHthjpkjdAdBVTYcTmvqEWqY5TJQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 8:39 PM, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> wrote:

> BTW, is there any opposite information, i.e. showing the
> limitation of MySQL comparing with PostgreSQL?

I'm not aware of a general list on the topic, but in reviewing
academic papers regarding transaction isolation I did find (and
confirm) that MySQL InnoDB relaxes the "strict" aspect of the
Strict 2 Phase Locking they use for implementing serializable
transactions. "For performance reasons" they drop the locks
acquired during the transaction *before* ensuring crash/recovery
persistence. This is more-or-less equivalent to always running
with synchronous_commit = off as well as allowing a small window
for serialization anomalies in corner cases. The PostgreSQL
synchronous_commit option allows a similar performance benefit
(where the trade-off is deemed justified) without risking data
integrity in the same way.

--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2016-07-29 14:01:40 Re: pg_basebackup wish list
Previous Message Andrew Borodin 2016-07-29 12:44:14 Re: Optimizing numeric SUM() aggregate