Re: incoherent view of serializable transactions

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "Kevin Grittner" <Kgrittn(dot)CCAP(dot)Courts(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "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: 2009-01-08 14:45:25
Message-ID: 4965BD25.EE98.0025.0@wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>>> I wrote:
>>>> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
>> Kevin Grittner wrote:
>>>> "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?
>>
>> I see what you mean now, but you could write out that logic in more
>> detail.
>
> Those weren't my words; I was quoting the SQL spec.

Last night I was reviewing my proposed patch from this thread, to try
to address other expressed concerns, and noticed that I had used this
language from the SQL spec in the patch. I see your point now.
Without the same context as the spec, and when intended for a
different audience, this language probably isn't the best. It now
also occurs to me that the spec is a copyrighted work, and it probably
isn't appropriate to copy a chunk that big into PostgreSQL docs.

I'll write something in my own words to replace this.

Thanks for the input, and sorry for misunderstanding.

-Kevin

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message D'Arcy J.M. Cain 2009-01-08 15:15:31 Re: Proposal: new border setting in psql
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-01-08 14:44:14 Re: ONLY with parentheses