| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)endpoint(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Overhead cost of Serializable Snapshot Isolation |
| Date: | 2011-10-11 20:51:19 |
| Message-ID: | 3605.1318366279@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> There is no off switch and there should be.
As Greg said, that ship has sailed. I believe that we specifically
discussed the notion of an "off switch" via a GUC or similar during
9.1 development, and rejected it on the grounds that GUCs changing
fundamental transactional behavior are dangerous. I don't believe that
you've made a case for changing that decision, and even if you had,
it's too late; 9.1 is what it is. Can we end this subthread please,
and concentrate on something actually useful, like improving SSI's
performance?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2011-10-11 20:52:00 | Re: unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-10-11 20:50:18 | Re: Overhead cost of Serializable Snapshot Isolation |