| From: | Justin <zzzzz(dot)graf(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alec Cozens <acozens(at)pixelpower(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: LWLock SerializableFinishedList |
| Date: | 2025-09-09 19:42:30 |
| Message-ID: | CALL-XeNqwTVJpjadqqL_ws965C_1EuP0wxrEu78AFTK+Tx5rRA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Also reviewing if we really need SERIALIZED and could instead use READ
COMMITTED. Would that be likely to mitigate against this happening?
PostgreSQL can NOT go below READ COMMITTED in transaction isolation
levels. Read Committed is the default mode for all transactions in
PostgreSQL
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/17/transaction-iso.html
Unless there is a very specific need for serializing transactions such as
financial calculations or updating and calculating the remaining number of
tickets to sell for a concert, Serialization adds a lot of overhead for
not much gain..
thanks
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2025-09-09 22:55:09 | Re: MVCC and all that... |
| Previous Message | Justin | 2025-09-09 19:31:51 | Re: LWLock SerializableFinishedList |