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

Re: incoherent view of serializable transactions

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Emmanuel Cecchet" <manu(at)frogthinker(dot)org>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: incoherent view of serializable transactions
Date: 2009-01-03 22:06:14
Message-ID: 200901040006.15871.peter_e@gmx.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wednesday 31 December 2008 02:33:26 Kevin Grittner wrote:
> I'm still working on section "Serializable Isolation versus True
> Serializability", but here are all the changes I can see which precede
> it.  Has the review of the SQL specs convinced everyone that this much
> is appropriate?

I don't agree with these changes.  You make it sound like serializability is 
an additional condition on the serializable isolation level on top of the 
no-phantom-reads condition.  I think that is not true, both mathematically 
and from the wording of the SQL standard.  It is an equivalent condition or a 
consequence, depending on how you view it.

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2009-01-03 22:20:10
Subject: Re: incoherent view of serializable transactions
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2009-01-03 21:42:18
Subject: Re: posix_fadvise v22

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