Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Comparison of PGSQL and DB2

From: Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to>
To: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Comparison of PGSQL and DB2
Date: 2004-03-11 19:47:02
Message-ID: 20040311194702.GB25007@wolff.to (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 14:21:09 -0500,
  Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-03-11 at 13:59, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Josh Berkus wrote:
> > > > Isolation Levels
> > > > (Support all four ANSI isolation levels (UR, CS, RS, RR).)
> > >
> > > I'm not sure about this one; I suspect that we do, however, since
> > > MVCC, invented for the Postgres Project, has become a standard for
> > > transaction isolation in the database industry.
> > 
> > 7.5 will support all four isolation levels.
> > 
> 
> I wasn't aware of anyone doing work on this... do you have any more
> info?

My memory of past discussion on this is that you would be able to set all
4 transaction isolation levels in a command, but you would really get
the next level up for the two that we don't provide. This is OK since
since they get at least the transaction isolation safety they need.
The reason for doing this is portability.

In response to

Responses

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: GandalfDate: 2004-03-11 19:49:11
Subject: Re: Suggestion
Previous:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2004-03-11 19:34:50
Subject: Re: Suggestion

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group