Re: User-facing aspects of serializable transactions

Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> writes:
> On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 20:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> * Anything else you want to control should be a GUC, as long as it
>> doesn't affect any correctness properties.

> But that still leaves out another behavior which avoids some of the
> serialization anomalies currently possible, but still does not guarantee
> true serializability (that is: implementation of the paper's technique
> sans predicate locking). Is that behavior useful enough to include?

Hmm, what I gathered was that that's not changing any basic semantic
guarantees (and therefore is okay to control as a GUC).  But I haven't
read the paper so maybe I'm missing something.
        regards, tom lane