On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
> Let me try to summarise my understanding of what the developers think
> they can and intend to promise, about SERIALIZABLE transactions:
>
> There is a consistent serialisation of all transactions which
> successfully commit; or which do not attempt to make any changes.
>
> A "consistent serialisation" means that there is an order in which
> the same transactions might have been executed giving exactly the
> answers. This includes, if applicable, the same errors. (The
> database is free to generate synchronisation failure errors 40P01 and
> 40001 whenever it chooses.)
I would alter that slightly to:
There is a consistent serialization of all serializable
transactions which successfully commit.
> A transaction which attempts to make any changes, and which does not
> commit (whether because the application never asks for COMMIT, or
> because of reported synchronisation failure) might see internally
> inconsistent data, or an internally-consistent view which is not
> compatible with any serialisation of other transactions. An
> application which needs a coherent view should not rely on any of the
> information from such a transaction.
Even a read-only transaction can see a state that is not consistent
with business rules (as enforced in the software) given that some
particular later state is reached.
For examples, please see this Wiki page. You might be particularly
interested in the examples in the "Read Only Transactions" section:
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/SSI
> Serialisation failures in subtransactions might cause the parent
> transaction to experience a serialisation failure too.
There is currently at least one bug which may allow serialization
anomalies into the database if a constraint violation error is
thrown in a subtransaction and that subtransaction catches and
suppresses that exception and rolls back its work without throwing
an error. I expect that any bugs of this type are will be fixed in
a minor release set soon -- probably the next one that is released.
Note that I don't think that an exception from any source other
than a declarative constraint can cause this type of problem, and
that other conditions must exist in combination with this to create
a serialization anomaly.
A serialization failure within any subtransaction will ensure the
top level transaction will fail, even if there is an attempt to
catch this exception and commit the top level transaction. It
would be possible to catch a serialization failure exception and
throw some *other* exception to terminate the transaction; however,
(to step into very convoluted territory) if that other exception is
caught and suppressed, the serialization failure error would occur.
Once a serialization failure occurs the transaction is flagged as
"doomed" and will not, under any circumstances be allowed to
commit. If you find any exception to that, please report it as a
bug.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
