Re: Add a new table for Transaction Isolation?

A bit of scope creep due to wanting to point out the obvious "RR and SER"
are the same observation on the table. The main body for SER covers the
fact as well though in a very technical way.

I thought pointing out that examples are on the Wiki would be useful as
well - not everyone would think to go there for additional information. No
like though - just a pointer to it or the Internet generally.

It is not obvious to me what <table tocentry="1"> means...I suspect 1=yes...

David J.

On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 6:26 PM, David G. Johnston <
david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, April 15, 2015, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 08:00:38PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
>> > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/static/transaction-iso.html
>> >
>> > Table 13-1 shows the SQL standard isolation levels and what is and is
>> not
>> > guaranteed. Then the text goes on to explain how our implementation
>> differs
>> > from that table. Is there any opposition to actually adding a similar
>> table,
>> > 13-2, probably right after the paragraph, with the same columns, three
>> rows,
>> > and the corresponding possible/not-possible cell values?
>>
>> Yes, it does make sense to have a table that properly matches the
>> Postgres implementation. Should I write a patch or would you like to?
>>
>>
> I'll take a crack at it.
>
> David J.
>