| From: | Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nicolas Barbier <nicolas(dot)barbier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Serializable Isolation without blocking |
| Date: | 2010-01-07 12:52:37 |
| Message-ID: | 4B45D915.3070507@bluegap.ch |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
Nicolas Barbier wrote:
> The specifics of relation databases can be entirely ignored in case
> serializability is provided on the "page layer" level.
Aha, I now see very vaguely how that could work, yes. Thank you for
elaborating on this. I agree that this isn't the best way forward for
Postgres.
>> As this seems to be an optimization of predicate locking, don't we need
>> to implement that first?
>
> Whole-table locking is a trivial implementation of predicate locking.
..and whole-database locking is a trivial implementation of true
serializability. In a way, both are optimizations of that trivial
implementation. My point is that due to that dependency, the conceptual
design of a solution for predicate locking (with acceptable performance)
should at least be considered before going into details with true
serializability.
Regards
Markus Wanner
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-01-07 13:10:36 | Re: unresolved bugs |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2010-01-07 12:50:12 | Re: 'replication' keyword on .pgpass (Streaming Replication) |