Re: Implementing SQL ASSERTION

On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 6:37 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:35 AM, David Fetter <david@fetter.org> wrote:
>> - We follow the SQL standard and make SERIALIZABLE the default
>>   transaction isolation level, and
>
> The consequences of such a decision would include:
>
> - pgbench -S would run up to 10x slower, at least if these old
> benchmark results are still valid:
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+TgmoZog1wFbyrqzJUkiLSXw5sDUjJGUeY0c2BqSG-tciSB7w@mail.gmail.com
>
> - pgbench without -S would fail outright, because it doesn't have
> provision to retry failed transactions.
>
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/16/1419/
>
> - Many user applications would probably also experience similar difficulties.
>
> - Parallel query would no longer work by default, unless this patch
> gets committed:
>
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/17/1004/
>
> I think a good deal of work to improve the performance of serializable
> would need to be done before we could even think about making it the
> default -- and even then, the fact that it really requires the
> application to be retry-capable seems like a pretty major obstacle.

Also:

- It's not available on hot standbys.  Experimental patches have been
developed based on the read only safe snapshot concept, but some
tricky problems remain unsolved.

- Performance is terrible (conflicts are maximised) if you use any
index type except btree, unless some of these get committed:

https://commitfest.postgresql.org/17/1172/
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/17/1183/
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/17/1466/

-- 
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com