On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Florian Pflug <f...@phlo.org> wrote: > On Oct11, 2011, at 23:35 , Simon Riggs wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Florian Pflug <f...@phlo.org> wrote: >> >>> That experience has taught me that backwards compatibility, while very >>> important in a lot of cases, has the potential to do just as much harm >>> if overdone. >> >> Agreed. Does my suggestion represent overdoing it? I ask for balance, >> not an extreme. > > It's my belief that an "off" switch for true serializability is overdoing > it, yes. > > With such a switch, every application that relies on true serializability > for > correctness would be prone to silent data corruption should the switch ever > get set to "off" accidentally. > > Without such a switch, OTOH, all that will happen are a few more aborts due > to > serialization errors in application who request SERIALIZABLE when they > really > only need REPEATABLE READ. Which, in the worst case, is a performance issue, > but never an issue of correctness.
That's a good argument and I accept it. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
