On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 8:39 PM, Tatsuo Ishii <is...@postgresql.org> wrote:
> BTW, is there any opposite information, i.e. showing the > limitation of MySQL comparing with PostgreSQL? I'm not aware of a general list on the topic, but in reviewing academic papers regarding transaction isolation I did find (and confirm) that MySQL InnoDB relaxes the "strict" aspect of the Strict 2 Phase Locking they use for implementing serializable transactions. "For performance reasons" they drop the locks acquired during the transaction *before* ensuring crash/recovery persistence. This is more-or-less equivalent to always running with synchronous_commit = off as well as allowing a small window for serialization anomalies in corner cases. The PostgreSQL synchronous_commit option allows a similar performance benefit (where the trade-off is deemed justified) without risking data integrity in the same way. -- Kevin Grittner EDB: 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
