| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Hot Standby 0.2.1 |
| Date: | 2009-09-23 16:03:04 |
| Message-ID: | 2476.1253721784@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Unfortunately, isolation level "serializable" is not truly
> serializable. Usually it is good enough, but when it isn't good
> enough and you need an explicit table lock (a very rare but not
> nonexistent situation), I think it should either lock the table in the
> manner it would do on the primary, or throw an error. I think that
> silently changing the behavior between primary and standby is not a
> good thing.
+1 --- this proposal made me acutely uncomfortable, too.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2009-09-23 16:07:26 | Re: Hot Standby 0.2.1 |
| Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2009-09-23 15:54:36 | Re: SELECT ... FOR UPDATE [WAIT integer | NOWAIT] for 8.5 |