Re: Overhead cost of Serializable Snapshot Isolation - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Overhead cost of Serializable Snapshot Isolation
Date
Msg-id 3605.1318366279@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Overhead cost of Serializable Snapshot Isolation  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> There is no off switch and there should be.

As Greg said, that ship has sailed.  I believe that we specifically
discussed the notion of an "off switch" via a GUC or similar during
9.1 development, and rejected it on the grounds that GUCs changing
fundamental transactional behavior are dangerous.  I don't believe that
you've made a case for changing that decision, and even if you had,
it's too late; 9.1 is what it is.  Can we end this subthread please,
and concentrate on something actually useful, like improving SSI's
performance?
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: Dumping roles improvements?
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf