Re: FOR PORTION OF code review

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>
Cc: 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: 2026-09-14 14:05:49
Message-ID: fsis3wtdcrcijt6j22nvefngqkh5dwpil5z5xoxrxcfh3nzsqo@hqx5uf6kahyq
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2026-09-12 15:18:28 +0200, Peter Eisentraut 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?

I'm not sure what course you're proposing here? To me it doesn't seem this is
ready for prime-time. I'd not be opposed to incrementally working on it in 20,
although the degree of issues left also makes it seem reasonable to start from
a clean slate.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nathan Bossart 2026-09-14 14:18:16 Re: fixes for a few GUC descriptions
Previous Message Robert Treat 2026-09-14 14:02:28 Re: REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) doesn't handle invalid indexes