On Dec 24, 2008, at 6:46 PM, Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>
> 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
>> 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.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: KaiGai Kohei||Date: 2008-12-25 00:05:07|
|Subject: Re: [idea] a copied relkind in pg_attribute|
|Previous:||From: Ron Mayer||Date: 2008-12-24 23:46:17|
|Subject: Re: incoherent view of serializable transactions|