From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Stark <greg(dot)stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Subject: | Re: incoherent view of serializable transactions |
Date: | 2008-12-30 08:56:43 |
Message-ID: | 4959E24B.9040900@gmx.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Stark wrote:
> And I don't see why you discard "visibility" as unimportant. All the
> transaction isolations are defined in terms of the results if the
> transactions. Those results include both the database state and the data
> returned by the queries. Otherwise "phantom read" is a meaningless concept.
Basically, if he wants to make a rigid argument that some scenario
violates the serializability promise, then it is necessary to prove:
(1) There is no serial schedule for the set of transactions that
achieves the same outcome. (This proof is probably hard to work out, as
many "there is no" proofs are.)
- or -
(2) A phantom read situation occurs.
His original argument uses terms like "window" where something is
"visible" (to whom?), which can probably be transformed into a proof for
(2), but is not convincing (to me) by itself.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2008-12-30 09:05:35 | Re: about truncate |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2008-12-30 08:42:06 | version() output vs. 32/64 bits |