Re: Add a new table for Transaction Isolation?

On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 02:14:37PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Saturday, April 25, 2015, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 08:47:47PM +0000, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> > Maybe something like "Prohibited", "Allowed but not Possible", and
> > "Possible"?  That would take a little explaining above, since our
> > documentation's table would be deviating from the standard's table
> > in its word choice.
>
> I can't even process that.
>
>
>
> After writing my thoughts this makes sense now.  Prohibited means that both
> tables would say not possible.  Possible means both tables would say possible. 
> Allowed but not possible means our implementation says not possible and the
> standard says it is possible.  The fourth possibility, not allowed but
> possible, would mean we are not standard conforming and since we are it never
> appears.
>
> I would probably choose "not possible (contra-SQL)" and emphasize our
> implementation and footnote the two differences.

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

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ Everyone has their own god. +