| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Daniel Roth <dan(dot)c(dot)roth(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: predicate locking |
| Date: | 2005-06-13 03:04:29 |
| Message-ID: | 10450.1118631869@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-sql |
Daniel Roth <dan(dot)c(dot)roth(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> It sates: "To guarantee true mathematical serializability, it is
> necessary for a database system to enforce predicate locking, which
> means that a transaction cannot insert or modify a row that would have
> matched the WHERE condition of a query in another concurrent
> transaction"
> Now that is exactly whats happens when you use SERIALIZABLE is MSSQL.
Only for WHERE conditions that can be expressed as a simple range
constraint.
> All I am trying to do is correct the help documentation - 12.2.2.1 "so
> far as we are aware no other production DBMS does either."
The documentation is not wrong; or at least, what you've quoted does not
show that it is.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Richard Huxton | 2005-06-13 14:43:41 | Re: duplicate key violates unique constraint |
| Previous Message | Daniel Roth | 2005-06-13 02:16:44 | Re: predicate locking |