Peter Eisentraut <> 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
>> assert shoulnd't be modified frequently, otherwise you'll run into
>> 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.


Please excuse brevity and formatting - I am writing this on my mobile phone.

Andres Freund            
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to