Re: Potential G2-item cycles under serializable isolation

From: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
Cc: Kyle Kingsbury <aphyr(at)jepsen(dot)io>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Potential G2-item cycles under serializable isolation
Date: 2020-06-15 21:39:11
Message-ID: CA+hUKG+qosU_NBeSpcZUEfFBpG3C3PwKPVZi30tFXrPjg67ejg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 5:16 AM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> At first glance it seemed to me that MySQL's repeatable read must be
> more or less the same as Postgres' repeatable read; there is only one
> snapshot in each case. But it's very different in reality, since
> updates and deletes don't use the transaction snapshot. Worst of all,
> you can update rows that were not visible to the transaction snapshot,
> thus rendering them visible (see the "Note" box in the documentation
> for an example of this). InnoDB won't throw a serialization error at
> any isolation level.

Ugh, obviously I only read the first two paragraphs of that page,
which sound an *awful* lot like a description of SI (admittedly
without naming it). My excuse is that I arrived on that page by
following a link from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snapshot_isolation. Wikipedia is wrong.
Thanks for clarifying.

In response to

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fabien COELHO 2020-06-16 04:54:44 Re: pgbench bug / limitation
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2020-06-15 17:15:59 Re: Potential G2-item cycles under serializable isolation