On Wed, 2006-03-01 at 10:22 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote: > >>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 7:22 am, in message > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Simon Riggs > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > OTOH a few hackers discussed this recently and found that nobody > used > > serializable transactions (ST) except during pg_dump. > > I've not been able to keep up with all messages on these lists, and I > missed that discussion.
It was a verbal discussion, hence not recorded on list. I should have said "nobody on that discussion"; I had no doubt somebody used them. My mention of that wasn't to add weight to the thought, just to mention a quick straw poll had been taken... > We use serializable transactions heavily; our whole middle tier > architecture depends on having that transaction isolation level for all > requests which modify data. (You probably don't want to hear the > details.) *I* would, but others may not. ;-) > It would be OK (although a little disappointing) if VACUUM > enhancements weren't as beneficial to us as a result; it would render > PostgreSQL entirely unusable for us if the integrity of serializable > transactions was broken unless we added some other, non-standard steps > to run them. I would never suggest breaking STs; they are part of the SQL standard. I merely suggested an extra, optional API by which ST users could provide additional information that could help others avoid pessimal decisions in order to preserve correctness. > We only use pg_dump for version upgrades and other special cases. PITR > is our main backup technique. Cool. Best Regards, Simon Riggs ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings