Re: Comments from a Firebird user via Borland Newsgroups. - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Comments from a Firebird user via Borland Newsgroups.
Date
Msg-id 5320.1131599234@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Comments from a Firebird user via Borland Newsgroups.  (Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to>)
Responses Re: Comments from a Firebird user via Borland Newsgroups.  (Tony Caduto <tony_caduto@amsoftwaredesign.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 19:35:30 -0600,
>   Tony Caduto <tony_caduto@amsoftwaredesign.com> wrote:
>> <We found PostgreSQL a mature product, but in two things Firebird was 
>> simply better than PostgreSQL: Two-Phase commit (ok, that is gone with 
>> PG 8.1), but the second is a SNAPSHOT / REPEATABLE READ transaction 
>> isolation. I can't live without that when it comes having a stable view 
>> of data during one transaction, or did that change with 8.1? Is there 
>> now a SNAPHOST / REPEATBLE READ transaction isolation level available as 
>> well?>
>> 
>> Just wondering what the PG take on this snapshot repeatable read stuff is.

> http://candle.pha.pa.us/main/writings/pgsql/sgml/sql-set-transaction.html
> http://candle.pha.pa.us/main/writings/pgsql/sgml/transaction-iso.html

It's a bit amusing that this person is dissing us for not having
REPEATABLE READ, when what he actually seems to want is SERIALIZABLE
(which we've had since 1999).  Certainly REPEATABLE READ does *not*
guarantee a "stable view of data during one transaction" --- see the
discussion of phantom reads in the second link given above.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruno Wolff III
Date:
Subject: Re: Comments from a Firebird user via Borland Newsgroups.
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Unclear documentation