On 12/18/13, 2:22 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> It would only force serialization for transactions that modify tables
> covered by the assert, that doesn't seem to bad. Anything covered by an
> assert shoulnd't be modified frequently, otherwise you'll run into major
> performance problems.
I think that makes sense. If you want to use assertions, you need to
run in serializable mode, otherwise you get an error if you modify
anything covered by an assertion.
In the future, someone could enhance this for other isolation levels,
but as Josh has pointed out, that would likely just be reimplementing
SSI with big locks.