| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kyle Kingsbury <aphyr(at)jepsen(dot)io> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Potential G2-item cycles under serializable isolation |
| Date: | 2020-06-01 04:20:30 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-WzkBwwDj38NvdiP4J3ia_POC68C1-FCtXvnDvnzwMASv5w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Hi Kyle,
On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 9:05 PM Kyle Kingsbury <aphyr(at)jepsen(dot)io> wrote:
> Oh! Gosh, yes, that DOES explain it. Somehow I had it in my head that both RU and RC mapped to SI, and RR & Serializable mapped to SSI. That's the case in YugabyteDB, but not here!
It's confusing because the standard only requires that the isolation
levels avoid certain read phenomena, but implementations are free to
go above and beyond. For example, you can ask Postgres for READ
UNCOMMITTED, but you'll get READ COMMITTED. (So RC, RR, and SI each
provide distinct behavior.)
> I'll also see about getting a version of these tests that doesn't involve ON CONFLICT, in case that's relevant.
That would be great. It could easily be relevant.
Thanks
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kyle Kingsbury | 2020-06-01 04:29:57 | Re: Potential G2-item cycles under serializable isolation |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2020-06-01 04:19:16 | Re: Potential G2-item cycles under serializable isolation |