2 ms·
We're hoping to add more compatibility layers, but the semantics of reading updates within a transaction are what gave the team pause. If you don't need that se
by boulos 9y ago
We're hoping to add more compatibility layers, but the semantics of reading updates within a transaction are what gave the team pause. If you don't need that semantic, it's relatively straightforward (I assume we'll see this happen either directly by us, or from the community).
Disclosure: I work on Google Cloud, but not on Spanner.
- fdsfsafasfdas 9y agoAny chance that Google Cloud will ever expose access to F1?
- boulos 9y agoThe point of the SQL layer now merged into Spanner is so that people don't have to run F1 or something like it on top. I'd expect continual improvements there, especially if enough folks say "I'll move if X"
- fdsfsafasfdas 9y agoWell, the hope would be that it would allow read-write-read sql transactions, which to my understanding will never be implemented in Spanner.
- bogomipz 9y agoAny insight into why read-write-read sql transactions will never make it into Spanner?
- elvinyung 9y agoNot sure if "never", but from the new Spanner paper[1]: > While we have seen comparatively little demand for this feature internally, supporting such semantics improves compatibility with other SQL systems and their ecosystems and is on our long-term radar. [1] http://dl.acm.org/authorize?N37621 http://dl.acm.org/authorize?N37621
- bogomipz 9y agoThanks for the clarification and the link.