On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
> I'm going to disagree here. For a large, sprawling, legacy application
> changing SERIALIZABLE to REPEATABLE READ in every place in the code
> which might call it can be prohibitively difficult.
What makes you think that would be necessary? That'd require someone
(a) using serializable, and (b) wanting it to be broken? I think the
most common reaction would be "thank goodness, this thing actually
works now".
> Further, many such
> applications would be written with workarounds for broken serializable
> behavior, workarounds which would behave unpredictably after an upgrade.
Uh... you want to support that with an example? Because my first
reaction is "that's FUD".
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
