| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Nick Barnes <nickbarnes01(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Question about RI checks |
| Date: | 2014-10-24 20:46:04 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobS+ZYZfASn_67_VNz0_=pk=LiYmv31TaXLC8brtgZXPQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> wrote:
> I believe the best way forward is to first find a solution for SERIALIZABLE
> transactions, and then check if it can be applied to REPEATABLE READ
> mode too. For SERIALIZABLE mode, it's at least clear what we're aiming
> for -- offering true serializability.
That sounds like a reasonable plan.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2014-10-24 20:46:47 | Re: pg_background (and more parallelism infrastructure patches) |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2014-10-24 20:26:55 | Re: pg_background (and more parallelism infrastructure patches) |