>>> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> A language lawyer might also point out that the note that contains
> the "explicitness" isn't actually part of the formal standard. The
only
> thing that the standard formally defines are the excluded phenomena.
Previously quoted, from the standard:
"The execution of concurrent SQL-transactions at isolation level
SERIALIZABLE is guaranteed to be serializable. A serializable
execution is defined to be an execution of the operations of
concurrently executing SQL-transactions that produces the same
effect as some serial execution of those same SQL-transactions. A
serial execution is one in which each SQL-transaction executes to
completion before the next SQL-transaction begins."
> More to the point, think about how a user might want to think about
these
> issues.
>
> "The standard also requires that serializable transactions behave as
though
> [...]" --- User: The standard requires it, but is it also
implemented?
> (Apparently not, but that is explained somewhere else.)
That's something I thought about, but failed to find a good way to
incorporate at that point, and I thought the discussion in the
following sections covered it. Perhaps a reference to those following
sections at the point of definition?
> "is a natural consequence of the fact" --- There is nothing natural
> about any of this. Why is it a consequence and how?
How could you possibly get any of those phenomena if there are no
concurrent transactions?
-Kevin