>>> Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: > A language lawyer might also point out that the note that contains > the "explicitness" isn't actually part of the formal standard. The only > thing that the standard formally defines are the excluded phenomena. Previously quoted, from the standard: "The execution of concurrent SQL-transactions at isolation level SERIALIZABLE is guaranteed to be serializable. A serializable execution is defined to be an execution of the operations of concurrently executing SQL-transactions that produces the same effect as some serial execution of those same SQL-transactions. A serial execution is one in which each SQL-transaction executes to completion before the next SQL-transaction begins." > More to the point, think about how a user might want to think about these > issues. > > "The standard also requires that serializable transactions behave as though > [...]" --- User: The standard requires it, but is it also implemented? > (Apparently not, but that is explained somewhere else.) That's something I thought about, but failed to find a good way to incorporate at that point, and I thought the discussion in the following sections covered it. Perhaps a reference to those following sections at the point of definition? > "is a natural consequence of the fact" --- There is nothing natural > about any of this. Why is it a consequence and how? How could you possibly get any of those phenomena if there are no concurrent transactions? -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
