Re: Potential G2-item cycles under serializable isolation

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 04:47:13
Message-ID: CAH2-Wzm2F+pNUVeonrS3cZfttJDBmp0nMUiHYG4qAoGQO-rCvA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 9:29 PM Kyle Kingsbury <aphyr(at)jepsen(dot)io> wrote:
> Right, right. I was thinking "Oh, repeatable read is incomparable with snapshot, so it must be that read committed is snapshot, and repeatable is serializable."

Right.

We used to call snapshot isolation (i.e., the behavior we now provide
under RR mode) SERIALIZABLE, which was wrong (still is in Oracle).
This was how Postgres worked before the SSI feature was added back in
2011. SSI became the new SERIALIZABLE at that time. Ordinary snapshot
isolation was "demoted" to being called RR mode.

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message PG Bug reporting form 2020-06-01 10:32:04 BUG #16472: Bug in to_timestamp ?
Previous Message Kyle Kingsbury 2020-06-01 04:29:57 Re: Potential G2-item cycles under serializable isolation