| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| 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: | 2015-04-25 21:14:37 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwaWqLbUvgq81JKKVtbrNQJBPhS2q6XUpj+EDZcd5bc3wA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
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.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2015-04-25 21:54:00 | Re: Add a new table for Transaction Isolation? |
| Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2015-04-25 21:09:41 | Re: Add a new table for Transaction Isolation? |