Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > I think we've learned over the years that GUCs that significantly > change semantics can be foot-guns. I'm not sure exactly how > dangerous this one would be I didn't respond to this at first because the idea seemed DOA, but with Josh's concerns I guess I should answer this question. With the patch, SERIALIZABLE transactions run exactly as they did before, and as REPEATABLE READ continue to run, except that they are monitored for read-write conflict patterns which can cause serialization anomalies. This monitoring doesn't introduce any new blocking. The only behavior change is that there are additional serialization failures when the monitoring detects dangerous structures in the rw-conflicts among transactions. The proposed GUC would suppress the monitoring in SERIALIZABLE mode and avoid the new serialization failures, thereby providing legacy behavior -- anomalies and all. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
