Re: User-facing aspects of serializable transactions

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: "Jeff Davis" <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>,"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: User-facing aspects of serializable transactions
Date: 2009-05-28 14:57:14
Message-ID: 4A1E5FF9.EE98.0025.1@wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:

> Could someone describe concisely what behavior "snapshot" isolation
> provides that repeatable read does?

Phantom reads are not possible in snapshot isolation. They are
allowed to occur (though not required to occur) in repeatable read.

Note that in early versions of the SQL standard, this difference was
sufficient to qualify as serializable; but recent versions raised
the bar for serializable transactions.

-Kevin

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2009-05-28 15:02:13 Re: Clean shutdown and warm standby
Previous Message Greg Stark 2009-05-28 14:57:11 Re: User-facing aspects of serializable transactions