Re: incoherent view of serializable transactions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: incoherent view of serializable transactions
Date
Msg-id 200901040006.15871.peter_e@gmx.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: incoherent view of serializable transactions  ("Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>)
Responses Re: incoherent view of serializable transactions  (Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wednesday 31 December 2008 02:33:26 Kevin Grittner wrote:
> I'm still working on section "Serializable Isolation versus True
> Serializability", but here are all the changes I can see which precede
> it.  Has the review of the SQL specs convinced everyone that this much
> is appropriate?

I don't agree with these changes.  You make it sound like serializability is 
an additional condition on the serializable isolation level on top of the 
no-phantom-reads condition.  I think that is not true, both mathematically 
and from the wording of the SQL standard.  It is an equivalent condition or a 
consequence, depending on how you view it.


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: posix_fadvise v22
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: incoherent view of serializable transactions