| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Cc: | "Wirch, Eduard" <eduard(dot)w(at)smart-host(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSql: Canceled on conflict out to old pivot |
| Date: | 2023-11-30 23:51:35 |
| Message-ID: | 534497.1701388295@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> writes:
> On 30/11/2023 18:24, Wirch, Eduard wrote:
>> My understanding of serializable isolation is that only transactions
>> which can somehow affect each other can conflict. It should be clear
>> for PostgreSql, that transactions belonging to different databases
>> cannot affect each other. Why do they cause serializable conflicts?
On what grounds do you assert that? Operations on shared catalogs
are visible across databases. Admittedly they can't be written by
ordinary DML, and I'm not sure that we make any promises about DDL
writes honoring serializability. But I'm unwilling to add
"optimizations" that assume that that will never happen.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2023-12-01 00:14:27 | Re: Something seems weird inside tts_virtual_copyslot() |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2023-11-30 23:36:13 | Re: Refactoring backend fork+exec code |