| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ron Johnson <ron(dot)l(dot)johnson(at)cox(dot)net>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Reliable and fast money transaction design |
| Date: | 2007-08-29 17:43:42 |
| Message-ID: | 6851.1188409422@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>>> SERIALIZABLE is really slow :).
>>
>> Say what? If anything it's probably faster than READ COMMITTED, because
>> it doesn't take as many snapshots. But the difference is likely down in
>> the noise anyway.
> Not in production it isn't.
Well, I can believe that specific applications might be slower overall
due to having to retry transactions that get serialization failures,
or perhaps because they take more locks to prevent such failures.
But it's not slower as far as the database engine is concerned.
If you think otherwise I'd like to see a test case.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2007-08-29 17:50:34 | Re: Reliable and fast money transaction design |
| Previous Message | Jeff Amiel | 2007-08-29 17:43:20 | SSL and crash woes. |