> The effects are different, I think, in that there isn't a > serialization failure in some conflict cases where you would get one > with actual updates. I found a paper on how to use updates to provide > serializable transactions in a snapshot database, and I'd have to > review closely to see how that difference affected the technique. I > had been thinking that the WAL generation and bloat issues made the > technique pretty iffy, but if SELECT FOR UPDATE suffices in place of > most of the proposed updates, it just might be feasible.
In fact, I think SELECT FOR SHARE is enough. That will give you better concurrency, since it will block only updates and not concurrent read transactions. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
