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?
