| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Compatibility GUC for serializable |
| Date: | 2011-01-10 18:35:49 |
| Message-ID: | 4D2B5185.7060804@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/10/11 10:28 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> The techniques we use in our shop wouldn't interact badly with SSI,
> and I'm having trouble picturing what would. Sure, some of these
> techniques would no longer be needed, and would only add overhead if
> SSI was there.
Yeah? Well, you have more experience than I do in this; my clients have
tended to use SELECT FOR UPDATE instead of SERIALIZABLE. I'll defer to
you if you feel reasonably confident that breakage won't result.
And as I said, I'm unsure of how many people are using SERIALIZABLE in
any mission-critical context right now.
--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-01-10 18:47:17 | Re: Compatibility GUC for serializable |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-01-10 18:28:16 | Re: Compatibility GUC for serializable |