| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, "<Markus Wanner" <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, "<pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: User-facing aspects of serializable transactions |
| Date: | 2009-06-01 20:17:23 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f070906011317q337be4e4v8ee843fc68acf623@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Greg Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 8:55 PM, Kevin Grittner
> <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
>>
>> Whoa! I just noticed this phrase on a re-read. I think there might
>> be some misunderstanding here.
>>
>> You can be sure you've written your transaction safely just as soon as
>> your COMMIT returns without error.
>
> I think we have different definitions of "safely". You only know that
> you got away with it *this time* when the commit returns without
> error.
>
> I'm concerned with whether you can be sure that the 999th time you run
> it the database won't randomly decide to declare a serialization
> failure for reasons you couldn't predict were possible.
Aren't serialization failures of any sort unpredictable, or any database?
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-06-01 20:23:29 | Re: It's June 1; do you know where your release is? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-06-01 20:09:36 | Re: list_head naming conflict gcc 4.2/perl/solaris |