| From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Emmanuel Cecchet" <manu(at)frogthinker(dot)org>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: incoherent view of serializable transactions |
| Date: | 2009-01-03 22:53:51 |
| Message-ID: | 87eizkt30g.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> On Wednesday 31 December 2008 02:33:26 Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> I'm still working on section "Serializable Isolation versus True
>> Serializability", but here are all the changes I can see which precede
>> it. Has the review of the SQL specs convinced everyone that this much
>> is appropriate?
>
> I don't agree with these changes. You make it sound like serializability is
> an additional condition on the serializable isolation level on top of the
> no-phantom-reads condition. I think that is not true, both mathematically
> and from the wording of the SQL standard. It is an equivalent condition or a
> consequence, depending on how you view it.
The standard explicitly says that the no-phantom-reads condition is a
consequence of the serializability constraint. Did you miss that whole
discussion this past week?
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Ask me about EnterpriseDB's PostGIS support!
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2009-01-03 22:56:13 | Re: Significantly larger toast tables on 8.4? |
| Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2009-01-03 22:47:21 | Re: [SPAM] Re: posix_fadvise v22 |