| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Emmanuel Cecchet" <manu(at)frogthinker(dot)org>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: incoherent view of serializable transactions |
| Date: | 2009-01-03 22:06:14 |
| Message-ID: | 200901040006.15871.peter_e@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2009-01-03 22:20:10 | Re: incoherent view of serializable transactions |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2009-01-03 21:42:18 | Re: posix_fadvise v22 |