| From: | Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | tony_caduto(at)amsoftwaredesign(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us |
| Subject: | Re: Comments from a Firebird user via Borland |
| Date: | 2005-11-11 05:56:09 |
| Message-ID: | 20051111055609.GB22400@wolff.to |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 12:00:12 -0600,
Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
> Hi Tony,
>
> As the referenced documentation states, the PostgreSQL SERIALIZABLE
> transaction isolation level complies with the ANSI/ISO requirements, but
> not with a mathematically pure interpretation of the term. (The only
> quibble I have with that documentation is that you have to be averting
> your eyes to not find several commercial products which do enforce the
> stricter interpretation.)
For cases where you really need predicate locking, you can use full table
locks.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dennis Bjorklund | 2005-11-11 06:30:42 | Re: 8.0 -> 8.1 dump duplicate key problem? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-11-10 23:44:19 | Re: foreign key constraints referencing inherited relations - WIP |