On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: > I'm going to disagree here. For a large, sprawling, legacy application > changing SERIALIZABLE to REPEATABLE READ in every place in the code > which might call it can be prohibitively difficult.
What makes you think that would be necessary? That'd require someone (a) using serializable, and (b) wanting it to be broken? I think the most common reaction would be "thank goodness, this thing actually works now". > Further, many such > applications would be written with workarounds for broken serializable > behavior, workarounds which would behave unpredictably after an upgrade. Uh... you want to support that with an example? Because my first reaction is "that's FUD". -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
