>>> Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On Mon, 2008-12-29 at 18:13 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote: > >> I hope someone can show me something good I've missed so far. > > You're viewing this in problem-exposed language, unintentionally I'm > sure. Hmmm.... My meaning was, "I hope someone can point me to a good paper summarizing the nature and scope of possible anomalies, to save me time casting about or thinking it through." If that came of as "there's nothing good about the current approach," I apologize. That was certainly not what I meant to convey. > My viewpoint on this is that database concurrency is a big issue, > but that the way we do things round here is a major leap forward on the > way things happened previously (and still do in older-style DBMS). I absolutely agree. > Our approach to serializable queries is an optimistic one in two ways: > It covers most cases, but not all theoretical cases. Not sure about "most". Referential integrity is a pretty common use case, and it is not covered without explicit locking. Many other common use cases are not, either. I agree many are, and that the rest can be worked around easily enough that I wouldn't want to see blocking introduced to the degree that non-MVCC databases use for serializable access. Thanks for pointing out a bad choice of words; no need for this to become muddled over simple misunderstandings. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
