On Mon, 2009-06-01 at 22:12 +0100, Greg Stark wrote: > No, I'm not. I'm questioning whether a serializable transaction > isolation level that makes no guarantee that it won't fire spuriously > is useful.
I am also concerned (depending on implementation, of course) that certain situations can make it almost certain that you will get serialization failures every time. For instance, a change in the heap order, or data distribution, could mean that your application is unable to make progress at all. Is this a valid concern, or are there ways of avoiding this situation? I would think that we'd need some way to detect that this is happening, give it a few tries, and then resort to full serialization for a few transactions so that the application can make progress. Regards, Jeff Davis -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers