On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 20:55 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Hmm, what I gathered was that that's not changing any basic semantic
> guarantees (and therefore is okay to control as a GUC). But I haven't
> read the paper so maybe I'm missing something.
On second read of this comment:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-05/msg01128.php
it says "reduce the frequency of serialization anomalies", which doesn't
necessarily mean that it makes new guarantees, I suppose. I should have
gone to the original source.
Anyway, it's a moot point, because apparently that's just a possible
step along the way toward true serializability, and doesn't need to be
separately distinguished.
Regards,Jeff Davis
