Re: Serializable implementation
От | Jeff Davis |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Serializable implementation |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1262042138.22866.1320.camel@jdavis обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Serializable implementation ("Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>) |
Ответы |
Re: Serializable implementation
Re: Serializable implementation |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2009-12-28 at 11:54 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote: > Serializable transaction isolation is attractive for shops with > active development by many programmers against a complex schema > because it guarantees data integrity with very little staff time -- I would like to see true serializability in some form as well. > Given that each of these would be the best choice for some > transaction mixes, it might make sense to allow some mapping of the > four ANSI transaction isolation levels to strategies for > implementation. At the risk of generating some backlash on this > particular point, it might allow a Read Committed implementation > which avoids some of the current anomalies, as a user-selectable > alternative to the current implementation. As a hypothetical > example, one might map the ANSI Read Uncommitted mode to what > PostgreSQL currently calls Read Committed, Read Committed to a > get-a-new-snapshot strategy, Repeatable Read to SI, and Serializable > to SSI. (Why do I feel like now would be a good time to duck?) I like the idea of moving toward using "serializable" for true serializability, and "repeatable read" for snapshot isolation (perhaps with a compatibility GUC existing for a while to get the old behavior). However, I don't know what you mean by "get-a-new-snapshot strategy" or how it is different from the current read committed behavior. We obviously want to be careful changing the default isolation level's behavior. Regards,Jeff Davis
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: