Re: incoherent view of serializable transactions

Kevin Grittner wrote:
> This isn't some hypothetical "maybe some day some product might
> implement this, but it'll never catch on" sort of thing -- Microsoft
> and Sybase SQL Server had this from version 1. I used it from 1990
> until the conversion to PostgreSQL over the last couple years.
>
Have you ever used serializable transactions with Sybase? The locking is
actually based on memory-pages and you end-up with deadlocks if you
don't pad your data structures to prevent false sharing. Oracle also
provides SI like Postgres and I don't think they are doing that bad.
> I'm going on second-hand information here, but I'm told that IBM DB2
> has used similar techniques to provide true serializable transactions
> for even longer.
>
> I'm somewhat mystified at the reaction this topic gets here. :-
I am somewhat mystified by the interest some people still have in
serializable transactions. Why don't users program the application to
deal with a lower isolation (actually I think they do)?

But I am probably missing the point which was to fix the doc?
Emmanuel

--
Emmanuel Cecchet
FTO @ Frog Thinker
Open Source Development & Consulting
--
Web: http://www.frogthinker.org
email: manu(at)frogthinker(dot)org
Skype: emmanuel_cecchet