Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: incoherent view of serializable transactions

From: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "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 22:53:51
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:

> 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.

The standard explicitly says that the no-phantom-reads condition is a
consequence of the serializability constraint. Did you miss that whole
discussion this past week?

  Gregory Stark
  Ask me about EnterpriseDB's PostGIS support!

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2009-01-03 22:56:13
Subject: Re: Significantly larger toast tables on 8.4?
Previous:From: Gregory StarkDate: 2009-01-03 22:47:21
Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: posix_fadvise v22

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group