3 ms·
To discourage people from using something broken. You're talking about a database that waited until 2011 to add a SERIALIZABLE implementation because the exist
by Jweb_Guru 11y ago
To discourage people from using something broken. You're talking about a database that waited until 2011 to add a SERIALIZABLE implementation because the existing solutions all sucked, and only did it then because of new research (SSI). They have zero qualms about keeping features out of the database, no matter how useful, if they can't be implemented well.
- aravindet 11y ago> They have zero qualms about keeping features out of the database, no matter how useful, if they can't be implemented well. Another example, INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE (UPSERT/MERGE) available just now in the 9.5 beta.
- notpeter 11y agoForget serializable, PostgreSQL 7.0 included functional ACID-safe transactions 5 years before MySQL but didn't include LEFT OUTER JOIN (http://www.postgresql.org/docs/7.1/static/release-7-1.html http://www.postgresql.org/docs/7.1/static/release-7-1.html) . That was my first taste of "if you can't do it right, don't ship it."