Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: User-facing aspects of serializable transactions

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: "Jeff Davis" <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>,"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: User-facing aspects of serializable transactions
Date: 2009-05-28 14:57:14
Message-ID: 4A1E5FF9.EE98.0025.1@wicourts.gov (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote: 
 
> Could someone describe concisely what behavior "snapshot" isolation
> provides that repeatable read does?
 
Phantom reads are not possible in snapshot isolation.  They are
allowed to occur (though not required to occur) in repeatable read.
 
Note that in early versions of the SQL standard, this difference was
sufficient to qualify as serializable; but recent versions raised
the bar for serializable transactions.
 
-Kevin

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2009-05-28 15:02:13
Subject: Re: Clean shutdown and warm standby
Previous:From: Greg StarkDate: 2009-05-28 14:57:11
Subject: Re: User-facing aspects of serializable transactions

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group