On Thu, 2009-05-07 at 15:26 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > It wouldn't be 692 lines of code and even if it were the impact of that
> > code would be such that it would need to be optional, since it would
> > differ in definition from an existing SQL Standard isolation mode and it
> > would have additional performance implications.
>
> I thought it would be equal to the SQL standard Serializable mode,
> whereas what we currently call serializable is in fact not as strong as
> the SQL standard Serializable mode.
Our serializable is the same as Oracle's implementation. I think it
would be confusing and non-useful to redefine ours, when it has already
been accepted that the Oracle definition implements the standard
reasonably closely. If that changes, we should also, however.
Perhaps the key point is the O(N^2) complexity of the new algorithm.
-- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.comPostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
