| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Cc: | akhilhello(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: correction |
| Date: | 2022-06-07 21:07:41 |
| Message-ID: | Yp++HQ6s6xomcCx8@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 11:49:09PM +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> I think that suffers from the same problem: izt sounds like the standard allows
> stricter behavior than PostgreSQL.
>
> How about:
>
> The table also shows that PostgreSQL's Repeatable Read implementation
> does not allow phantom reads. That is fine, because the SQL standard only
> specifies which anomalies must <emphasis>not</enphasis> occur at a certain
> isolation level. It is no problem if an implementation provides higher
> guarantees than required.
> The behavior of the available isolation levels is detailed in the
> following subsections.
How is this, attached?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
Indecision is a decision. Inaction is an action. Mark Batterson
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| strict.diff | text/x-diff | 838 bytes |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stefan Schmiedl | 2022-06-07 21:23:22 | Re[2]: Mention RETURNING ... INTO target |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-06-07 21:07:30 | Re: Mention RETURNING ... INTO target |