| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <greg(dot)stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, "<pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: User-facing aspects of serializable transactions |
| Date: | 2009-05-28 01:49:19 |
| Message-ID: | 23417.1243475359@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Stark <greg(dot)stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Without any real way to represent predicates this is all pie in the
> sky. The reason we don't have predicate locking is because of this
> problem which it sounds like we're no closer to solving.
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.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2009-05-28 01:57:20 | Re: User-facing aspects of serializable transactions |
| Previous Message | andy | 2009-05-28 01:43:00 | sun blade 1000 donation |