From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Documenting serializable vs snapshot isolation levels |
Date: | 2009-01-02 19:20:17 |
Message-ID: | 1230924017.4032.136.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2009-01-02 at 13:47 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> >> What do you mean by referential integrity? I don't believe you can
> >> construct a foreign key problem at any transaction isolation level.
>
> > I mean that if someone attempts to maintain referential integrity with
> > SQL code, without using explicit locks, it is not reliable.
> > Presumably the implementation of foreign keys in PostgreSQL takes this
> > into account and blocks the kind of behavior shown below. This
> > behavior would not occur with true serializable transactions.
>
> IIRC the RI code has to fudge the normal serializable-snapshot behavior
> in order to guarantee no constraint violation --- it has to be aware of
> concurrent changes that would otherwise be invisible to a serializable
> transaction.
...just to add that this is exactly as required by SQL Standard, i.e. RI
works in Read Committed mode even within a Serializable transaction.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Smith | 2009-01-02 19:25:47 | Re: posix_fadvise v22 |
Previous Message | Alex Hunsaker | 2009-01-02 18:56:47 | Re: Significantly larger toast tables on 8.4? |