| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Emmanuel Cecchet <manu(at)frogthinker(dot)org>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: incoherent view of serializable transactions |
| Date: | 2008-12-24 23:53:35 |
| Message-ID: | EF51FA30-452A-44C8-835F-DB55C95A72CD@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Dec 24, 2008, at 6:46 PM, Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>
wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>>> ... serializable transaction ...
>> If we were to construct a database that had one giant lock for the
>> entire database so that only a single query could execute at one
>> time,
>> transactions would be serializable (because they'd in fact be
>> serialized). However, performance would suck.
>
> I wonder if this giant-lock-for-isolation-level-serializable
> is a mode postgres should support. ISTM it would meet the
> letter of the spec, and at least some of the people using
> "transaction isolation level serializable" are doing so precisely
> because they *want* the database to deal with all possible
> serialization issues, and accepting performance penalties.
No. :-)
Cheers,
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | KaiGai Kohei | 2008-12-25 00:05:07 | Re: [idea] a copied relkind in pg_attribute |
| Previous Message | Ron Mayer | 2008-12-24 23:46:17 | Re: incoherent view of serializable transactions |