Re: Overhead cost of Serializable Snapshot Isolation

From: Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)endpoint(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Overhead cost of Serializable Snapshot Isolation
Date: 2011-10-11 20:39:26
Message-ID: 20111011203926.GQ3007@tinybird.home
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 04:32:45PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
...
> Simon seems to value backward-compatibility more than the average
> hackers poster. The lack of complaints about 9.1 I think means that the
> hackers decision of _not_ providing a swich was the right one.

I wouldn't go that far: 9.1 is very new. Certainly the release notes do
not explain the change enough: part of the reason I wrote:

http://blog.endpoint.com/2011/09/postgresql-allows-for-different.html

Simon has a point, but I think that having applications switch from
serializable to repeatable read is a pain point people should
pay when going to 9.1, rather than adding some switch now.

--
Greg Sabino Mullane greg(at)endpoint(dot)com
End Point Corporation
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alexander Korotkov 2011-10-11 20:44:40 Re: index-only scans
Previous Message Tom Lane 2011-10-11 20:39:03 Re: SET variable - Permission issues