Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> writes:
> On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 20:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> * Anything else you want to control should be a GUC, as long as it
>> doesn't affect any correctness properties.
> But that still leaves out another behavior which avoids some of the
> serialization anomalies currently possible, but still does not guarantee
> true serializability (that is: implementation of the paper's technique
> sans predicate locking). Is that behavior useful enough to include?
Hmm, what I gathered was that that's not changing any basic semantic
guarantees (and therefore is okay to control as a GUC). But I haven't
read the paper so maybe I'm missing something.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
