From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] SQL assertions prototype |
Date: | 2013-12-17 21:26:09 |
Message-ID: | 52B0C171.2000705@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/15/2013 05:41 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> A fundamental problem with this is that it needs to handle isolation
> reliable, so that the assertion cannot be violated when two concurrent
> backends do things. Consider the example from the manual, which checks
> that a table has at least one row. Now, if the table has two rows to
> begin with, and in one backend you delete one row, and concurrently in
> another backend you delete the other row, and then commit both
> transactions, the assertion is violated.
>
> In other words, the assertions need to be checked in serializable mode.
> Now that we have a real serializable mode, I think that's actually
> feasible.
Going back over this patch, I haven't seen any further discussion of the
point Heikki raises above, which seems like a bit of a showstopper.
Heikki, did you have specific ideas on how to solve this? Right now my
mind boggles.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2013-12-17 21:27:26 | Re: 9.3 reference constraint regression |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2013-12-17 21:05:43 | processing time zone |