| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: User-facing aspects of serializable transactions |
| Date: | 2009-05-28 00:55:18 |
| Message-ID: | 22144.1243472118@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 20:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> * Anything else you want to control should be a GUC, as long as it
>> doesn't affect any correctness properties.
> But that still leaves out another behavior which avoids some of the
> serialization anomalies currently possible, but still does not guarantee
> true serializability (that is: implementation of the paper's technique
> sans predicate locking). Is that behavior useful enough to include?
Hmm, what I gathered was that that's not changing any basic semantic
guarantees (and therefore is okay to control as a GUC). But I haven't
read the paper so maybe I'm missing something.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2009-05-28 01:00:03 | Re: User-facing aspects of serializable transactions |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-05-28 00:52:05 | Re: User-facing aspects of serializable transactions |