Re: In-place updates and serializable transactions
От | Kevin Grittner |
---|---|
Тема | Re: In-place updates and serializable transactions |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CACjxUsOPzRZsomSUU9rfba_Cy3yqT1txwaE9oV4_ztxCavysSQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: In-place updates and serializable transactions (Joshua Yanovski <joshua.yanovski@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: In-place updates and serializable transactions
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 5:43 AM Joshua Yanovski <joshua.yanovski@gmail.com> wrote: > This is only a personal anecdote, but from my own experience with serializability, this sort of blind update isn't oftencontended in realistic workloads. > So, if this only affects transactions with blind updates, I doubt it will cause much pain in real workloads (even thoughit might look bad in benchmarks which include a mix of blind writes and rmw operations). Particularly if it only happensif you explicitly opt into zheap storage. I agree with all of that, but will be very interested in what failures, if any, kick out from the "isolation" test set when all tables are created using zheap. I added all the common failure patterns I had seen to that set, and other have filled in some corner cases I missed since then, so if everything there passes I would not worry about it at all. If we do see some failures, we can take another look to see whether any action is needed. -- Kevin Grittner VMware vCenter Server https://www.vmware.com/
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: