From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Anthony Berglas <anthony(dot)berglas(at)lucida(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Multi-Versions and Vacuum -- cf Oracle & Vacuum alt |
Date: | 2002-07-23 21:57:22 |
Message-ID: | 200207232157.g6NLvMF06515@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Anthony Berglas wrote:
> Thanks for doing the test in Oracle. What I did not see is you setting the
> Isolation Level. Or maybe that is what I forgot to do when I did similar
> tests some time ago! (I don't have Oracle handy or I'd try again.)
>
> However, the point remains, that there is no reason why PostgreSQL could not
> provide more serialized transactions in Read Committed mode without taking
> the hits with rollback that Serializable mode gives.
Yes, we could probably do it, but it doesn't make sense for SELECT to
use SERIALIZABLE while in the same transaction UPDATE/DELETE is using
READ COMMITTED. Seems that would cause all sorts of confusion.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Treat | 2002-07-23 22:10:02 | Re: column limit? |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-07-23 21:55:41 | Re: Error abort transaction behaviour |