Re: Serializable wrong? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Pantelis Theodosiou
Subject Re: Serializable wrong?
Date
Msg-id CAE3TBxxpcFzptAgteQk_5FERNNY5ui2yLe2-LZ2BbjLK3_HoJA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Serializable wrong?  (Joshua Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>)
List pgsql-hackers


On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 6:58 PM Joshua Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
-Hackers,

I came across this today [1], "
3 Results

In most respects, PostgreSQL behaved as expected: both read uncommitted and read committed prevent write skew and aborted reads. We observed no internal consistency violations. However, we have two surprising results to report. The first is that PostgreSQL’s “repeatable read” is weaker than repeatable read, at least as defined by Berenson, Adya, Bailis, et al. This is not necessarily wrong: the ANSI SQL standard is ambiguous. The second result, which is definitely wrong, is that PostgreSQL’s “serializable” isolation level isn’t serializable: it allows G2-item during normal operation. "

Thanks!

JD


Yes, this has been reported and is under discussion in pgsql-bugs list:

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/db7b729d-0226-d162-a126-8a8ab2dc4443%40jepsen.io

 

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Ranier Vilela
Date:
Subject: Postgresql13_beta1 (could not rename temporary statistics file)Windows 64bits
Next
From: Dmitry Igrishin
Date:
Subject: Re: Building PostgreSQL extensions on Windows