| From: | "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Documenting serializable vs snapshot isolation levels |
| Date: | 2008-12-30 15:58:45 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f070812300758v1495fa17g68623e94fd6c6630@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> The effects are different, I think, in that there isn't a
> serialization failure in some conflict cases where you would get one
> with actual updates. I found a paper on how to use updates to provide
> serializable transactions in a snapshot database, and I'd have to
> review closely to see how that difference affected the technique. I
> had been thinking that the WAL generation and bloat issues made the
> technique pretty iffy, but if SELECT FOR UPDATE suffices in place of
> most of the proposed updates, it just might be feasible.
In fact, I think SELECT FOR SHARE is enough. That will give you
better concurrency, since it will block only updates and not
concurrent read transactions.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2008-12-30 16:23:39 | Re: about truncate |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2008-12-30 15:57:21 | Re: Documenting serializable vs snapshot isolation levels |