Re: Compatibility GUC for serializable
От | Josh Berkus |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Compatibility GUC for serializable |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4D2B5E34.9010405@agliodbs.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Compatibility GUC for serializable ("Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>) |
Ответы |
Re: Compatibility GUC for serializable
Re: Compatibility GUC for serializable |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/10/11 10:47 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote: > If they're not using SERIALIZABLE, this patch will have no impact on > them at all. If they are using SELECT FOR UPDATE *with* > SERIALIZABLE, everything will function exactly as it is except that > there may be some serialization failures which they weren't getting > before, either from the inevitable (but hopefully minimal) false > positives inherent in the technique or because they missed covering > something. Right, that's what I'm worried about. That's the sort of thing which is very hard for a user to hunt down and troubleshoot, and could become a blocker to upgrading. Especially if they user has a vendor application where they *can't* fix the code. The only reason I'm ambivalent about this is I'm unsure that there are more than a handful of people using SERIALIZABLE in production applications, precisely because it's been so unintuitive in the past. Lemme start a survey on whether people use SERIALIZABLE. -- -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://www.pgexperts.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: