Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> schrieb: >On 12/18/13, 2:22 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >> It would only force serialization for transactions that modify tables >> covered by the assert, that doesn't seem to bad. Anything covered by >an >> assert shoulnd't be modified frequently, otherwise you'll run into >major >> performance problems. > >I think that makes sense. If you want to use assertions, you need to >run in serializable mode, otherwise you get an error if you modify >anything covered by an assertion. > >In the future, someone could enhance this for other isolation levels, >but as Josh has pointed out, that would likely just be reimplementing >SSI with big locks.
SSI only actually works correctly if all transactions use SSI... I am not sure if we can guarantee that the subset we'd require'd be safe without the read sie using SSI. Andres -- Please excuse brevity and formatting - I am writing this on my mobile phone. Andres Freund 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
