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
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 |