| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Patrick Earl <patearl(at)patearl(dot)net>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "<pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Select For Update and Left Outer Join |
| Date: | 2011-07-11 16:32:30 |
| Message-ID: | 14470.1310401950@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I find these responses to be a bit off point. Not everyone can or will
> want to use SERIALIZABLE. The OP's point is that we - particularly
> Tom - have argued in the past that we shouldn't allow this because
> it's too ill-defined and/or confusing. Evidently our competition does
> not agree, and I think that's a point worth noting.
Has anyone looked into what the competition thinks the appropriate
definition is, or whether they all agree on the details?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gurjeet Singh | 2011-07-11 16:45:09 | Launching debugger on self on SIGSEGV |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-07-11 16:14:52 | Re: Select For Update and Left Outer Join |