On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Kevin Grittner <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> wrote: > One thing that would work, but I really don't think I like it, is > that a request for a snapshot for such a transaction would not only > block until it could get a "clean" snapshot (no overlapping > serializable non-read-only transactions which overlap serializable > transactions which wrote data and then committed in time to be > visible to the snapshot being acquired), but it would *also* block > *other* serializable transactions, if they were non-read-only, on an > attempt to acquire a snapshot.
This seems pretty close to guaranteeing serializability by running transactions one at a time (i.e. I don't think it's likely to be acceptable from a performance standpoint). -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
