Re: PostgreSQL not ACID compliant?

From: Sailesh Krishnamurthy <sailesh(at)cs(dot)berkeley(dot)edu>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Florian Weimer <fw(at)deneb(dot)enyo(dot)de>, "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL not ACID compliant?
Date: 2003-09-26 10:09:39
Message-ID: bxywubvx3mk.fsf@datafix.cs.berkeley.edu
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

Tom> AFAIK, no commercial database does predicate locking either,

True ..

Tom> so we all fall short of true serializability. The usual
Tom> solution if you need the sort of behavior you're talking
Tom> about is to take a non-sharable write lock on the table you
Tom> want to modify, so that only one transaction can do the

Not really. If you have B+-tree indexes on the table you can get by
with key-value locking (as in ARIES/KVL) and achieve some of the
effects of predicate locking to get true serializability without
losing too much concurrency. While this falls short in the general
case, it turns out to be pretty acceptable normally (when indexes are
present).

--
Pip-pip
Sailesh
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~sailesh

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Merlin Moncure 2003-09-26 12:11:44 Re: [HACKERS] Threads vs Processes
Previous Message Andreas Pflug 2003-09-26 09:35:08 Re: pg_get_triggerdef pretty printing