> It’s not higher level concurrency mechanics That’s what I assumed. I guess what I’m confused (and concerned) about is the types of “disaster” described, whic

> It’s not higher level concurrency mechanics That’s what I assumed. I guess what I’m confused (and concerned) about is the types of “disaster” described, which aren’t just about trade offs, but a long tail of potentially undetectable error conditions. I would have expected that to be either a solved problem for Postgres or at least mostly agnostic to the concurrency mechanism. I would figure the change would be questionable for performance and broad computational complexity reasons, not correctness. Maybe that’s par for the course and my naivety isn’t (just) distance from Postgres internals but the realities of concurrent programming in C?