Quick Links

Re: Overhead cost of Serializable Snapshot Isolation

From:	Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To:	Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>
Cc:	Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>
Subject:	Re: Overhead cost of Serializable Snapshot Isolation
Date:	2011-10-11 21:35:58
Message-ID:	CA+U5nM+ztRxhFM2kGoMhA1+gSZMHRnR49sD6n+Qi-GOevtoEtg@mail.gmail.com
Views:	Raw Message \| Whole Thread \| Download mbox \| Resend email
Thread:
Lists:	pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> wrote:

> That experience has taught me that backwards compatibility, while very
> important in a lot of cases, has the potential to do just as much harm
> if overdone.

Agreed. Does my suggestion represent overdoing it? I ask for balance,
not an extreme.

--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Re: Overhead cost of Serializable Snapshot Isolation at 2011-10-11 21:30:32 from Florian Pflug

Responses

Re: Overhead cost of Serializable Snapshot Isolation at 2011-10-11 21:45:44 from Bruce Momjian
Re: Overhead cost of Serializable Snapshot Isolation at 2011-10-12 12:44:29 from Florian Pflug

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

	From	Date	Subject
Next Message	Andrew Dunstan	2011-10-11 21:36:54	Re: Dumping roles improvements?
Previous Message	Bruce Momjian	2011-10-11 21:35:41	Re: pg_ctl restart - behaviour based on wrong instance