| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>,<yamt(at)mwd(dot)biglobe(dot)ne(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Large Objects versus transactional behavior |
| Date: | 2011-05-13 01:44:43 |
| Message-ID: | 4DCC46BB020000250003D683@gw.wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> is there any chance to "just" make large objects obey the normal
> semantics in future?
I sure hope so, but I have no idea how hard that is. I feel the same
about TRUNCATE TABLE now that I recognize the semantic difference
between it and DELETE FROM with no WHERE clause.
For this release, though, I don't think it would be sane to try to
make them comply with transactional semantics. And, as I mentioned,
Serializable Snapshot Isolation can only make serializable that which
is conforming to the semantics of snapshot isolation.
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Lou Picciano | 2011-05-13 02:19:17 | Re: performance-test farm |
| Previous Message | YAMAMOTO Takashi | 2011-05-13 00:48:29 | Re: Large Objects versus transactional behavior |