Re: incoherent view of serializable transactions

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:

> On Wednesday 31 December 2008 02:33:26 Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> I'm still working on section "Serializable Isolation versus True
>> Serializability", but here are all the changes I can see which precede
>> it.  Has the review of the SQL specs convinced everyone that this much
>> is appropriate?
>
> I don't agree with these changes.  You make it sound like serializability is 
> an additional condition on the serializable isolation level on top of the 
> no-phantom-reads condition.  I think that is not true, both mathematically 
> and from the wording of the SQL standard.  It is an equivalent condition or a 
> consequence, depending on how you view it.

The standard explicitly says that the no-phantom-reads condition is a
consequence of the serializability constraint. Did you miss that whole
discussion this past week?

--  Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB          http://www.enterprisedb.com Ask me about EnterpriseDB's PostGIS support!