| From: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Add a new table for Transaction Isolation? |
| Date: | 2015-04-29 14:15:20 |
| Message-ID: | 1416656552.447025.1430316920874.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> I went with "Allowed, but not in PG" for those two fields, and
> removed the extra rows I had added. You can see the output here:
>
> http://momjian.us/expire/transaction-iso.html
Looks great!
The only suggestion I can think to make to the table itself is to
make the new column header singular, to match the other columns.
I do think we should define the term used in the new column header;
maybe something like this:
serialization anomaly
The result of successfully committing a group of transactions
is inconsistent with all possible orderings of running those
transactions one at a time.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2015-04-29 20:08:15 | Re: Add a new table for Transaction Isolation? |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2015-04-29 00:31:19 | Re: [PATCH] Advise devs to prefer server_version_num over parsing the version |