Serializable wrong? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Joshua Drake
Subject Serializable wrong?
Date
Msg-id CAJvJg-QdcQ7raGRrgmOEgApWHC=1cqd0G2uOvh=qSHP0k6gDsg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: Serializable wrong?  (Pantelis Theodosiou <ypercube@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
-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

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Parallel Seq Scan vs kernel read ahead
Next
From: Andrew Gierth
Date:
Subject: Re: Infinities in type numeric