| From: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Brad Nicholson <bnichols(at)ca(dot)afilias(dot)info>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Strange Behavior with Serializable Transcations |
| Date: | 2006-06-29 12:27:30 |
| Message-ID: | 20060629122730.GD16792@svana.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 01:21:19PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> The issue is the difference between start of transaction and time when
> the serializable snapshot is taken. Since BEGIN and other commands may
> be issued as separate network requests it makes sense to defer taking
> the snapshot until the first time it is needed. The transaction is still
> serializable, just that the manual is worded slightly incorrectly with
> regards the exact timing.
I've always interpreted it as "there exists a serialised order for the
transactions" but the database makes no guarentees about what it might
be. I can't think of any real world case where you actually care about
the order, just as long as one exists.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2006-06-29 12:39:50 | Re: User privileges in web database applications |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-06-29 12:21:19 | Re: Strange Behavior with Serializable Transcations |