Bickler ,
pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Serializable Transaction Anomoly
[You don't often get email from laurenz.a...@cybertec.at. Learn why this is
important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
On Tue, 2024-11-05 at 18:41 +, Daniel Bickler wrote:
> T
assistance and responses,
Daniel Bickler
From: Laurenz Albe
Date: Tuesday, November 5, 2024 at 12:21 PM
To: Daniel Bickler ,
pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Serializable Transaction Anomoly
[Image removed by sender.]
IRONSCALES couldn't recognize this email as this is the first
On Tue, 2024-11-05 at 18:41 +, Daniel Bickler wrote:
> The way I interpreted the documentation, the example I ran into was a false
> negative
> according to the definition of a serialization anomaly, because it’s serial
> in one
> ordering but not the other which seems incorrect with “all pos
On Tue, 2024-11-05 at 15:05 +, PG Doc comments form wrote:
> I discovered an oddity in Serializable Transaction behavior and while
> referencing the current docs there is a possible contradiction and I'm not
> sure if this is a bug or expected behavior. At minimum there seems to be a
> contradi
The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/17/transaction-iso.html
Description:
I discovered an oddity in Serializable Transaction behavior and while
referencing the current docs there is a possible contradiction and I'm not
sure if t
