| From: | Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Michael Lewis <mlewis(at)entrata(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, PostgreSQL General <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Serializable read only deferrable- implications |
| Date: | 2022-03-08 16:27:15 |
| Message-ID: | e4ede358-4e87-2752-c49c-00b97178f37a@aklaver.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 3/8/22 08:21, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Lewis <mlewis(at)entrata(dot)com> writes:
>>> A transaction started with the first statement will not take any SI locks,
>>> nor will it ever receive a serialization error.
>
>> What is the meaning of SI? Anything you are aware of in source code or a
>> blog post that discusses this?
>
> There's src/backend/storage/lmgr/README-SSI, which might or might
> not be the level of detail you are looking for.
If you want to ease into the above:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/mvcc-intro.html
"PostgreSQL maintains this guarantee even when providing the strictest
level of transaction isolation through the use of an innovative
Serializable Snapshot Isolation (SSI) level."
Then:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/transaction-iso.html#XACT-SERIALIZABLE
and
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/applevel-consistency.html#SERIALIZABLE-CONSISTENCY
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Lewis | 2022-03-08 18:47:21 | Re: Serializable read only deferrable- implications |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-03-08 16:21:21 | Re: Serializable read only deferrable- implications |