Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> schrieb:
>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.
SSI only actually works correctly if all transactions use SSI... I am not sure if we can guarantee that the subset we'd
require'dbe safe without the read sie using SSI.
Andres
--
Please excuse brevity and formatting - I am writing this on my mobile phone.
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
