| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Compatibility GUC for serializable |
| Date: | 2011-01-11 00:41:27 |
| Message-ID: | 1294706487.27478.5.camel@jdavis-ux.asterdata.local |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2011-01-10 at 11:29 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 1/10/11 10:47 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> > If they're not using SERIALIZABLE, this patch will have no impact on
> > them at all. If they are using SELECT FOR UPDATE *with*
> > SERIALIZABLE, everything will function exactly as it is except that
> > there may be some serialization failures which they weren't getting
> > before, either from the inevitable (but hopefully minimal) false
> > positives inherent in the technique or because they missed covering
> > something.
>
> Right, that's what I'm worried about.
If we must have a GUC, perhaps we could publish a sunset one release in
the future.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-01-11 00:52:35 | Re: Bug in pg_describe_object |
| Previous Message | Cédric Villemain | 2011-01-11 00:28:33 | Re: Streaming base backups |