On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote:
> One thing that would work, but I really don't think I like it, is
> that a request for a snapshot for such a transaction would not only
> block until it could get a "clean" snapshot (no overlapping
> serializable non-read-only transactions which overlap serializable
> transactions which wrote data and then committed in time to be
> visible to the snapshot being acquired), but it would *also* block
> *other* serializable transactions, if they were non-read-only, on an
> attempt to acquire a snapshot.
This seems pretty close to guaranteeing serializability by running
transactions one at a time (i.e. I don't think it's likely to be
acceptable from a performance standpoint).
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
