| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| 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: | 2026-09-15 10:36:40 |
| Message-ID: | a11201e5-287e-43e1-8466-4669c522942e@eisentraut.org |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 14.09.26 16:19, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 14.09.26 15:52, Melanie Plageman wrote:
>> 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?
>
> I was trying to nudge toward reverting without saying it. ;-)
I have reverted the feature.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Salma El-Sayed | 2026-09-15 10:42:42 | Re: [GSoC 2026] - B-tree Index Bloat Reduction - Approach & Questions |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2026-09-15 10:35:20 | Re: Distinguish publication exclusions in object addresses |