Re: Compatibility GUC for serializable

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Compatibility GUC for serializable
Date: 2011-01-10 19:29:56
Message-ID: 4D2B5E34.9010405@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: 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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andreas Karlsson 2011-01-10 19:38:50 Bug in pg_describe_object (was: Re: [HACKERS] obj_unique_identifier(oid))
Previous Message Cédric Villemain 2011-01-10 19:13:18 Re: Streaming base backups