On 06/20/2017 12:33 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> postgres=# create table ints (n int);
> CREATE TABLE
> postgres=# insert into ints values (1);
> INSERT 0 1
> postgres=# insert into ints values (2);
> INSERT 0 1
>
> T1: BEGIN
> T1: UPDATE ints SET n = n + 1;
> T2: BEGIN
> T2: DELETE FROM ints where n = 2; -- blocks
> T1: COMMIT; -- T2 frees
> T2: SELECT * FROM ints; -- both rows 2 and 3 visible
> T2: COMMIT:
For me (in PG 9.5 at $work), at the instant of the commit in T1,
T2 says:
ERROR: could not serialize access due to concurrent update
Is it indicated what PG version Michael Malis is using?
Is it clear that transaction_isolation was set to serializable?
I don't actually see that claim in the linked post. I see the
example (about halfway down, under "Skipped Modification"), but
it doesn't claim that transaction_isolation was set to serializable
at the time, unless I skimmed over it somehow. It seems more of a
demonstration of what can happen under a different isolation setting.
-Chap
