Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

Re: Add a new table for Transaction Isolation? - Mailing list pgsql-docs

From David G. Johnston
Subject Re: Add a new table for Transaction Isolation?
Date
Msg-id CAKFQuwY5wAL1aFyAEt1ZxBHEZRCduiRpUAAVoH_q5VyaRV4RJQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Add a new table for Transaction Isolation?  ("David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Add a new table for Transaction Isolation?
List pgsql-docs
Tree view
A bit of scope creep due to wanting to point out the obvious "RR and SER" are the same observation on the table.  The main body for SER covers the fact as well though in a very technical way.

I thought pointing out that examples are on the Wiki would be useful as well - not everyone would think to go there for additional information.  No like though - just a pointer to it or the Internet generally.

It is not obvious to me what <table tocentry="1"> means...I suspect 1=yes...

David J.

On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 6:26 PM, David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, April 15, 2015, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 08:00:38PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/static/transaction-iso.html
>
> Table 13-1 shows the SQL standard isolation levels and what is and is not
> guaranteed.  Then the text goes on to explain how our implementation differs
> from that table.  Is there any opposition to actually adding a similar table,
> 13-2, probably right after the paragraph, with the same columns, three rows,
> and the corresponding possible/not-possible cell values?

Yes, it does make sense to have a table that properly matches the
Postgres implementation.   Should I write a patch or would you like to?


I'll take a crack at it.

David J. 

Attachment

pgsql-docs by date:

Previous
From: "David G. Johnston"
Date:
Subject: Re: Add a new table for Transaction Isolation?
Next
From: fred Alabi
Date:
Subject: old version