| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: "Causal reads" mode for load balancing reads without stale data |
| Date: | 2016-02-29 11:38:22 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqTOgBmetwO5Gt=KFrwYpw7=ri39AO0oXS_p9PJrfye8Sw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Thomas Munro
<thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> "All changes made by the transaction become visible to others ..." --
> which others? But I backed out, that succinct account of COMMIT is 20
> years old, and in any case visibility is tied to committing, not
> specifically to the COMMIT command. But perhaps this patch really
> should include something there that refers back to the causal reads
> section.
Luckily enough, read uncommitted behaves like read-committed in PG,
making this true :)
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Valery Popov | 2016-02-29 11:43:11 | Re: [REVIEW]: Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol |
| Previous Message | Artur Zakirov | 2016-02-29 11:18:48 | Confusing with commit time usage in logical decoding |