Re: Documenting serializable vs snapshot isolation levels
| От | Robert Haas |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Documenting serializable vs snapshot isolation levels |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 603c8f070812300758v1495fa17g68623e94fd6c6630@mail.gmail.com обсуждение |
| Ответ на | Re: Documenting serializable vs snapshot isolation levels ("Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Documenting serializable vs snapshot isolation
levels
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
> The effects are different, I think, in that there isn't a > serialization failure in some conflict cases where you would get one > with actual updates. I found a paper on how to use updates to provide > serializable transactions in a snapshot database, and I'd have to > review closely to see how that difference affected the technique. I > had been thinking that the WAL generation and bloat issues made the > technique pretty iffy, but if SELECT FOR UPDATE suffices in place of > most of the proposed updates, it just might be feasible. In fact, I think SELECT FOR SHARE is enough. That will give you better concurrency, since it will block only updates and not concurrent read transactions. ...Robert
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: