| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Emmanuel Cecchet" <manu(at)frogthinker(dot)org>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>,"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: incoherent view of serializable transactions |
| Date: | 2008-12-31 00:33:26 |
| Message-ID: | 495A6976.EE98.0025.0@wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>>> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> If you have a concrete suggestion (= patch) for the documentation,
I'm
> all ears.
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?
It also seems like the "Data Consistency Checks at the Application
Level" section could use a little more detail. Since referential
integrity checks are so well understood, and don't work reliably under
snapshot serialization without explicit locks, perhaps that could be
added?
-Kevin
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| serializable-doc1.diff | application/octet-stream | 2.4 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2008-12-31 01:15:06 | Re: about truncate |
| Previous Message | Jaime Casanova | 2008-12-30 21:07:33 | Re: about truncate |