From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Overhead cost of Serializable Snapshot Isolation |
Date: | 2011-10-11 21:26:56 |
Message-ID: | CA+U5nMJY1rverLx=QN=ZfZg1AVRFAuCeMgkHg7himVMXbc8hPw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 10:00 PM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> "You'll have to retest your apps" just isn't a good answer
>
> For which major PostgreSQL releases have you recommended that people
> deploy their apps without retesting?
None. People don't always follow my advice, regrettably. They ask
comparative questions like "What is the risk of upgrade?", "How much
testing is required?"
I never met a customer yet that has an automated test suite designed
to stress the accuracy of results under concurrent workloads, so the
inability to control the way a new feature operates makes such
questions more likely to be given an answer that indicates greater
effort and higher risk. That is exactly what I personally would wish
to avoid.
An off switch encourages people to use new features. It is not a
punishment or an admonition to the developer.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Florian Pflug | 2011-10-11 21:30:32 | Re: Overhead cost of Serializable Snapshot Isolation |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-10-11 21:22:10 | Re: Overhead cost of Serializable Snapshot Isolation |