Re: Major features for 9.1 - Mailing list pgsql-advocacy
From | Andrew Lardinois |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Major features for 9.1 |
Date | |
Msg-id | BANLkTim1v6gQ57pdTtAugMdB2GRfxuHOgA@mail.gmail.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: Major features for 9.1 ("Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>) |
Responses |
Re: Major features for 9.1
Re: Major features for 9.1 |
List | pgsql-advocacy |
This must be the article in ACM-SIGMOD:
There was also a paper published all the way back in 1997 by the Information Processing Society of Japan entitled:
"A concurrency control algorithm using serialization graph testing with write deferring"
Interestingly a Fujii, M is one (of three) authors. I'm wondering if that is Fujii, Masao of JPug? I'm off to write them now to confirm.
Andrew Lardinois
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote:
Gilberto Castillo Martínez<gilberto.castillo@etecsa.cu> wrote:
>> > when it comes to SSI I am not finding any explanations
>> > for this acronym.
>>
>> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Serializable
>>
>> It's about a technique for serializable transactions which
>> doesn't add any blocking beyond what is present in snapshot
>> isolation. In contrast, most serializable implementations which
>> provide true serializability do this by blocking conflicting
>> transactions. A description of the SSI technique was first
>> published in the 2008 ACM SIGMOD, with independent confirmation
>> of some of the published performance improvements compared to
>> traditional S2PL serializability by an ACM committee. While two
>> prototype implementations were developed to support academic
>> papers on the topic, we believe this is the first production-
>> quality implementation. It includes many innovations which were
>> not described in any academic papers on the topic.
>
> Excelent!
>> The News:I didn't intend for that to be my recommended "elevator talk"
> It's about a technique for serializable transactions which doesn't
> add any blocking beyond what is present in snapshot isolation. It
> includes many innovations which were not described in any academic
> papers on the topic.
summary; I was just trying to quickly explain the feature to someone
who knew nothing of it. [pause] Oh. [pause] I guess maybe this
should be my starting point, although I usually like to harp on the
fact that it allows programmers to enforce business rules within
triggers or even application code without worrying about explicit
locking and how this can boost programming productivity, especially
in large shops.
I'm not sure I can hit both angles in one two-sentence summary.
Which angle is better? Maybe I could creep to three sentences to
allow both points?
-Kevin
pgsql-advocacy by date: