Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> On Wednesday 31 December 2008 02:33:26 Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> 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?
> I don't agree with these changes. You make it sound like serializability is
> an additional condition on the serializable isolation level on top of the
> no-phantom-reads condition. I think that is not true, both mathematically
> and from the wording of the SQL standard. It is an equivalent condition or a
> consequence, depending on how you view it.
The standard explicitly says that the no-phantom-reads condition is a
consequence of the serializability constraint. Did you miss that whole
discussion this past week?
Ask me about EnterpriseDB's PostGIS support!
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2009-01-03 22:56:13|
|Subject: Re: Significantly larger toast tables on 8.4?|
|Previous:||From: Gregory Stark||Date: 2009-01-03 22:47:21|
|Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: posix_fadvise v22|