Re: User-facing aspects of serializable transactions

"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> But at least it doesn't seem like anyone is seriously arguing that
>> true serializability wouldn't be a nice feature, if hypothetically
>> we had an agreed-upon implementation and a high-level developer with
>> a lot of time on their hands.

> If that's true, I think it represents a major shift in perspective on
> this list. Does everyone *really* agree with the above?

I think we'd all love to have it, if we could get it with reasonable
performance and without an undue amount of complexity. What you're
up against is a lot of skepticism that that's going to be possible.
Which then translates into wondering whether partial solutions are
worthwhile, if they won't ever get extended to full solutions.

(So, in that sense, discussing possible implementations now is not
premature --- we need to calibrate what we believe is possible.)

regards, tom lane