| From: | Peter Eisentraut <e99re41(at)DoCS(dot)UU(dot)SE> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Ed Loehr <eloehr(at)austin(dot)rr(dot)com>, Joachim Achtzehnter <joachim(at)kraut(dot)bc(dot)ca>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | RE: Revisited: Transactions, insert unique. |
| Date: | 2000-04-27 07:45:32 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.GSO.4.02A.10004270944221.23225-100000@Duva.DoCS.UU.SE |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thu, 27 Apr 2000, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> PostgreSQL's SERIALIZABLE isolation level would allow both inserts.
> READ COMMITED isolation level wouldn't allow A's inserts.
>
> As I mentioned in another posting,PostgreSQL's SERIALIZABLE
> isolation level isn't completely serializable and it's same as Oracle.
> Probably Vadim refers to this incomplete serializability somewhere
> in documentation.
> It seems almost impossible to implement complete serializability
> under MVCC without using table level locking. I love MVCC much
> more than theoretically beautiful complete serializability.
Given that Postgres correctly recognizes concurrent updates and aborts one
of the transactions, how difficult would it be to do the same for inserts?
--
Peter Eisentraut Sernanders väg 10:115
peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net 75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2000-04-27 08:02:32 | Re: [HACKERS] pgsql/php3/apache authentication |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2000-04-27 07:29:36 | Re: I'm just doin' the 7.0 RC1 install and have some input on the documentation. |