| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Serializable Snapshot Isolation |
| Date: | 2010-09-25 14:45:28 |
| Message-ID: | 16766.1285425928@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Kevin Grittner
> <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
>> One place I'm particularly interested in using such a feature is in
>> pg_dump. Without it we have the choice of using a SERIALIZABLE
>> transaction, which might fail or cause failures (which doesn't seem
>> good for a backup program) or using REPEATABLE READ (to get current
>> snapshot isolation behavior), which might capture a view of the data
>> which contains serialization anomalies.
> I'm puzzled how pg_dump could possibly have serialization anomalies.
At the moment, it can't. If this patch means that it can, that's going
to be a mighty good reason not to apply the patch.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-09-25 15:24:27 | Re: Serializable Snapshot Isolation |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-09-25 14:34:35 | Re: What happened to the is_<type> family of functions proposal? |