Thread

1. Re: Review: Row-level Locks & SERIALIZABLE transactions, postgres vs. Oracle

   Kevin Grittner <grimkg@gmail.com> — 2010-09-18T18:44:48Z

   This patch suffered a lot of bitrot in the last month, mostly due to the
   noop patch for SSI.  It also used the term SERIALIZABLE in many places to
   indicate any transaction-snapshot mode transaction, so I applied changes
   consistent with the noop patch.  I also found a few whitespace and brace
   usage issues which seemed to conflict with conventional usage and cleaned
   those up.  A minor spelling typo also corrected.
   
   A new patch reflecting all this is attached.
   
   This now compiles and passes regression tests.  I still need to re-run all
   the other tests which Florian and I previously used to test the patch.  I
   don't have any reason to expect that they will now fail, but one need to be
   thorough.  Once that is confirmed, I think this will be ready for committer
   unless someone can think of something else to throw at it first.
   
   -Kevin
   

2. Re: Review: Row-level Locks & SERIALIZABLE transactions, postgres vs. Oracle

   Kevin Grittner <kevin.grittner@wicourts.gov> — 2010-09-24T21:19:14Z

   Kevin Grittner <grimkg@gmail.com> wrote:
    
   > This now compiles and passes regression tests.  I still need to
   > re-run all the other tests which Florian and I previously used to
   > test the patch.  I don't have any reason to expect that they will
   > now fail, but one need to be thorough.  Once that is confirmed, I
   > think this will be ready for committer unless someone can think of
   > something else to throw at it first.
    
   I reran the tests at http://github.com/fgp/fk_concurrency and,
   unsurprisingly, it still works.
    
   This patch addresses concerns I heard expressed by a couple guys
   from an Oracle shop who wanted to convert to PostgreSQL but were
   much put out by the behavior of SELECT FOR UPDATE under snapshot
   isolation in PostgreSQL.  This patch should do much to ease the
   migration of some Oracle shops to PostgreSQL.
    
   A complete review was done in the last CF, but I held off marking it
   as Ready for Committer then because there were some more tests
   coming, which all looked good.
    
   http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4C41932002000025000337FB@gw.wicourts.gov
    
   I am marking this patch "Ready for Committer" now.
    
   -Kevin