"Albe Laurenz" <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at> wrote:
> I read the example carefully, and it seems to me that it is
> necessary for the read-only transaction (T3) to be SERIALIZABLE so
> that T1 is aborted and the state that T3 saw remains valid.
> If I understand right, I agree with your correction.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Alexander Korotkov||Date: 2012-02-20 17:34:21|
|Subject: Re: Incorrect behaviour when using a GiST index on points|
|Previous:||From: Albe Laurenz||Date: 2012-02-20 15:51:17|
|Subject: Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server|