| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Greg Stark <greg(dot)stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: User-facing aspects of serializable transactions |
| Date: | 2009-05-28 12:20:13 |
| Message-ID: | 200905281520.13620.peter_e@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thursday 28 May 2009 04:49:19 Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah. The fundamental problem with all the "practical" approaches I've
> heard of is that they only work for a subset of possible predicates
> (possible WHERE clauses). The idea that you get true serializability
> only if your queries are phrased just so is ... icky. So icky that
> it doesn't sound like an improvement over what we have.
Is it even possible to have a predicate locking implementation that can verify
whether an arbitrary predicate implies another arbitrary predicate? And this
isn't constraint exclusion, where it is acceptable to have false negatives.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2009-05-28 12:24:21 | Re: search_path vs extensions |
| Previous Message | Zdenek Kotala | 2009-05-28 11:51:07 | Re: Compiler warning cleanup - unitilized const variables, pointer type mismatch |