| From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: UPDATE of partition key |
| Date: | 2017-02-20 10:08:13 |
| Message-ID: | CAEepm=0_oU0FU-fgg+PFp+b7VqwQ9UWbY-ydfuvuJCrvEYfP+Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 3:36 PM, Thomas Munro
<thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 8:53 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Generally speaking, we don't throw
>> serialization errors today at READ COMMITTED, so if we do so here,
>> that's going to be a noticeable and perhaps unwelcome change.
>
> Yes we do:
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/transaction-iso.html#XACT-REPEATABLE-READ
Oops -- please ignore, I misread that as repeatable read.
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ashutosh Sharma | 2017-02-20 10:20:30 | Re: Should we cacheline align PGXACT? |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2017-02-20 10:06:50 | Re: UPDATE of partition key |