Florian Pflug <fgp@phlo.org> wrote:
> All in all, I believe that SHARE and UPDATE row-level locks should
> be changed to cause concurrent UPDATEs to fail with a
> serialization error. I can come up with a patch that does that,
> but I wanted to get some feedback on the idea before I put the
> work in.
Before you work on that, you might want to wait until you can review
the work that I and Dan Ports (a Ph.D. candidate from MIT) have been
doing on support for true serializable transactions. You don't need
to use FOR SHARE or FOR UPDATE or any explicit locks as long as the
concurrent transactions are SERIALIZABLE. We have it working, but
have been holding off on discussion or patch submission at Tom's
request -- he felt it would distract from the process of getting the
release out.
Whenever people are ready, I can submit a WIP patch. All issues
discuss on this thread "Just Work" with the patch applied. There's
a Wiki page and a public git repository related to this work, for
anyone who is interested and not busy with release work.
-Kevin
