Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Sailesh Krishnamurthy
Subject Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)
Date
Msg-id mjqwtuaxstj.fsf@drones.CS.Berkeley.EDU
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
   Tom> People who hang around Postgres too long tend to think that   Tom> MVCC is the obviously correct way to do
things,but much of   Tom> the rest of the world thinks differently ;-)
 

It works the other way too ... people who come from the locking world
find it difficult to wrap their heads around MVCC. A big part of this
is because Gray's original paper on transaction isolation defines the
different levels based on what kind of lock acquisitions they involve. 

A very nice alternative approach to defining transaction isolation is
"Generalized isolation level definitions" by Adya, Liskov and O'Neill
that appears in ICDE 2000. 

-- 
Pip-pip
Sailesh
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~sailesh




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Neil Conway
Date:
Subject: Re: ARC patent
Next
From: Jeff Davis
Date:
Subject: Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)