| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, 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: | 2015-04-28 22:25:12 |
| Message-ID: | 20150428222512.GC31727@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 02:54:00PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> Paraphrasing here...
>
> Table # presents the postgresql implementation of the sql standard
> isolation levels and notes the additional impermissible behaviors by
> including "(contra-SQL)" in the cell. "Contrary to the SQL standard" - the
> imprecision in the term seems acceptable.
>
> Not Possible (contra-SQL)
>
>
> I'd also consider a 5th column to denote whether a serialization failure is
> possible in the first place and then the monitor column would distinguish
> between repeatable read and serializable.
I think the showing a serialization failure column is too much to add to
the table.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2015-04-28 22:26:03 | Re: Add a new table for Transaction Isolation? |
| Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2015-04-25 21:54:00 | Re: Add a new table for Transaction Isolation? |