On 12/17/2013 04:42 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
>> On 11/15/2013 05:41 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>> A fundamental problem with this is that it needs to handle isolation
>>> reliable, so that the assertion cannot be violated when two concurrent
>>> backends do things. Consider the example from the manual, which checks
>>> that a table has at least one row. Now, if the table has two rows to
>>> begin with, and in one backend you delete one row, and concurrently in
>>> another backend you delete the other row, and then commit both
>>> transactions, the assertion is violated.
>>>
>>> In other words, the assertions need to be checked in serializable mode.
>>> Now that we have a real serializable mode, I think that's actually
>>> feasible.
>> Going back over this patch, I haven't seen any further discussion of the
>> point Heikki raises above, which seems like a bit of a showstopper.
>>
>> Heikki, did you have specific ideas on how to solve this? Right now my
>> mind boggles.
> It works fine as long as you set default_transaction_isolation =
> 'serializable' and never override that. :-) Of course, it sure
> would be nice to have a way to prohibit overrides, but that's
> another issue.
>
> Otherwise it is hard to see how to make it work in a general way
> without a mutually exclusive lock mode on the table for the
> duration of any transaction which modifies the table.
>
Maybe the presence of an assertion should be enough to force
serializable, i.e. turn it on and not allow it to be turned off.
cheers
andrew
>
>
