Re: Implementing SQL ASSERTION

From: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
To: Joe Wildish <joe-postgresql(dot)org(at)elusive(dot)cx>
Cc: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Implementing SQL ASSERTION
Date: 2018-03-07 15:10:44
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 09:14:02PM +0000, Joe Wildish wrote:
> Hi David,
> > On 15 Jan 2018, at 16:35, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> wrote:
> >
> > It sounds reasonable enough that I'd like to make a couple of Modest
> > Proposals™, to wit:
> >
> > - We follow the SQL standard and make SERIALIZABLE the default
> > transaction isolation level, and
> >
> > - We disallow writes at isolation levels other than SERIALIZABLE when
> > any ASSERTION could be in play.
> Certainly it would be easy to put a test into the assertion check
> function to require the isolation level be serialisable. I didn’t
> realise that that was also the default level as per the standard.
> That need not necessarily be changed, of course; it would be obvious
> to the user that it was a requirement as the creation of an
> assertion would fail without it, as would any subsequent attempts to
> modify the involved tables.

This patch no longer applies. Any chance of a rebase?

David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
Phone: +1 415 235 3778

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres:

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Petr Jelinek 2018-03-07 15:22:23 Re: public schema default ACL
Previous Message Nikolay Shaplov 2018-03-07 15:08:49 Re: [PATCH][PROPOSAL] Add enum releation option type