On 10/15/07, Syan Tan <kittylitter@people.net.au> wrote:
> >Also keep in mind that MVCC is not the only way to implement
> >transactions; pure locking is more common in other databases. In the
> >locking model, most transactions prevent others from writing until
> >after they are finished. Rows simply can't have different versions
> >(and of course concurrent performance is awful).
>
> what about postgresql doing something like snapshot isolation level as per
> the enemy M$ ?
SQL Server is normally a pure locking database; from what I can tell,
its snapshot isolation level adds a limited form of MVCC above that,
making its concurrent behavior closer to PostgreSQL's:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms345124(d=printer).aspx
