On 12/18/2013 02:45 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-12-18 16:39:58 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> 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.
>> Well, as presented there is no way (for the system) to tell which tables
>> are covered by an assertion, is there? That's my point.
> Well, the patch's syntax seems to only allow to directly specify a SQL
> query to check - we could iterate over the querytree to gather all
> related tables and reject any function we do not understand.
>
Umm, that's really a major limitation in utility. We need to come up
with a better answer than this, which would essentially hobble the facility.
cheers
andrew
