"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
>> What do you mean by referential integrity?  I don't believe you can
>> construct a foreign key problem at any transaction isolation level.
 
> I mean that if someone attempts to maintain referential integrity with
> SQL code, without using explicit locks, it is not reliable. 
> Presumably the implementation of foreign keys in PostgreSQL takes this
> into account and blocks the kind of behavior shown below.  This
> behavior would not occur with true serializable transactions.

IIRC the RI code has to fudge the normal serializable-snapshot behavior
in order to guarantee no constraint violation --- it has to be aware of
concurrent changes that would otherwise be invisible to a serializable
transaction.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

• Re: Documenting serializable vs snapshot isolationlevels at 2009-01-02 18:01:55 from Kevin Grittner

Responses

• Re: Documenting serializable vs snapshot isolation levels at 2009-01-02 19:20:17 from Simon Riggs

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Alex Hunsaker	Date: 2009-01-02 18:56:47
	Subject: Re: Significantly larger toast tables on 8.4?
Previous:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2009-01-02 18:44:48
	Subject: Re: Significantly larger toast tables on 8.4?