On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 14:27:30 +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 01:21:19PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > > The issue is the difference between start of transaction and time when > > the serializable snapshot is taken. Since BEGIN and other commands may > > be issued as separate network requests it makes sense to defer taking > > the snapshot until the first time it is needed. The transaction is still > > serializable, just that the manual is worded slightly incorrectly with > > regards the exact timing. > > I've always interpreted it as "there exists a serialised order for the > transactions" but the database makes no guarentees about what it might > be. I can't think of any real world case where you actually care about > the order, just as long as one exists.
Postgres' serializable mode doesn't guaranty that. To get that effect you may need to do some extra locking. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster