Re: Overhead cost of Serializable Snapshot Isolation

Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 10:22 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> >> How could I change the viewpoint of the group without making rational
> >> arguments when it matters?
> >
> > Well, you make your arguments, and you see if you convince anybody.
> > On these specific points, you've failed to sway the consensus AFAICT,
> > and at some point you have to accept that you've lost the argument.
>
> I'm happy to wait more than 4 hours before trying to judge any
> meaningful consensus.
>
> Rushing judgement on such points is hardly likely to encourage people
> to speak up, even assuming they have the opportunity.

This is an issue you have been pushing for a very long time on many
fronts --- four hours is not going to change anything.

Have you considered developing a super-backward-compatible version of
Postgres, or a patch set which does this, and seeing if there is any
interest from users? If you could get major uptake, it would certainly
bolster your argument. But, until I see that, I am unlikely to listen
to further protestations.

I am much more likely to just ignore your suggestions as "Oh, it is just
Simon on the backward-compatibility bandwagon again", and it causes me
to just mentally filter your ideas, which isn't productive, and I am
sure others will do the same.

Read the MS-SQL post about backward compatibility knobs as proof that
many of us know the risks of too much backward compatibility.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +