From: | Emmanuel Cecchet <manu(at)frogthinker(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: incoherent view of serializable transactions |
Date: | 2008-12-23 14:59:30 |
Message-ID: | 4950FCD2.7060108@frogthinker.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Kevin Grittner wrote:
> This isn't some hypothetical "maybe some day some product might
> implement this, but it'll never catch on" sort of thing -- Microsoft
> and Sybase SQL Server had this from version 1. I used it from 1990
> until the conversion to PostgreSQL over the last couple years.
>
Have you ever used serializable transactions with Sybase? The locking is
actually based on memory-pages and you end-up with deadlocks if you
don't pad your data structures to prevent false sharing. Oracle also
provides SI like Postgres and I don't think they are doing that bad.
> I'm going on second-hand information here, but I'm told that IBM DB2
> has used similar techniques to provide true serializable transactions
> for even longer.
>
> I'm somewhat mystified at the reaction this topic gets here. :-
I am somewhat mystified by the interest some people still have in
serializable transactions. Why don't users program the application to
deal with a lower isolation (actually I think they do)?
But I am probably missing the point which was to fix the doc?
Emmanuel
--
Emmanuel Cecchet
FTO @ Frog Thinker
Open Source Development & Consulting
--
Web: http://www.frogthinker.org
email: manu(at)frogthinker(dot)org
Skype: emmanuel_cecchet
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2008-12-23 15:14:29 | Re: Proposed Patch to Improve Performance of Multi-Batch Hash Join for Skewed Data Sets |
Previous Message | Joshua Tolley | 2008-12-23 14:51:51 | Re: Proposed Patch to Improve Performance of Multi-Batch Hash Join for Skewed Data Sets |