Re: Overhead cost of Serializable Snapshot Isolation - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: Overhead cost of Serializable Snapshot Isolation
Date
Msg-id CA+U5nMLAu=AczR8hs2hbNVsRfx_m4cvG7aCj+wpi_v5rXXS8Tw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Overhead cost of Serializable Snapshot Isolation  ("Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>)
Responses Re: Overhead cost of Serializable Snapshot Isolation  (Florian Pflug <fgp@phlo.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 9:37 PM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote:

> It would certainly be a trivial change to
> implement; the problem is convincing others that it's a good idea.

I don't want it, I just think we need it now. "You'll have to retest
your apps" just isn't a good answer and we should respect the huge
cost that causes our users.

Probably as a matter of policy all new features that effect semantics
should have some kind of compatibility or off switch, if easily
possible.

--
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: index-only scans
Next
From: Dimitri Fontaine
Date:
Subject: Re: Index only scan paving the way for "auto" clustered tables?