On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 12:00:12 -0600,
Kevin Grittner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Tony,
>
> As the referenced documentation states, the PostgreSQL SERIALIZABLE
> transaction isolation level complies with the ANSI/ISO requirements, but
> not with a mathematically pure interpretation of the t
Hi Tony,
As the referenced documentation states, the PostgreSQL SERIALIZABLE
transaction isolation level complies with the ANSI/ISO requirements, but
not with a mathematically pure interpretation of the term. (The only
quibble I have with that documentation is that you have to be averting
your ey
Tony Caduto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom,
> This is what the firebird guy said:
>>> Serializable is stricter and somehwat unusable in a multi-user, loaded
>>> database, because only one transaction can run at any time.
He's already demonstrated that he has no clue what he's talking about,
so
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, Tony Caduto wrote:
Serializable is stricter and somehwat unusable in a multi-user, loaded
database, because only one transaction can run at any time. Let's say you
would have one long running serializable transaction encapsulating a
reporting query, this will cause other tra
Tom Lane wrote:
http://candle.pha.pa.us/main/writings/pgsql/sgml/sql-set-transaction.html
http://candle.pha.pa.us/main/writings/pgsql/sgml/transaction-iso.html
It's a bit amusing that this person is dissing us for not having
REPEATABLE READ, when what he actually seems to want is SERIALIZA
Bruno Wolff III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 19:35:30 -0600,
> Tony Caduto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > simply better than PostgreSQL: Two-Phase commit (ok, that is gone with
>> PG 8.1), but the second is a SNAPSHOT / REPEATABLE READ transaction
>> isolation. I can't
On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 19:35:30 -0600,
Tony Caduto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> simply better than PostgreSQL: Two-Phase commit (ok, that is gone with
> PG 8.1), but the second is a SNAPSHOT / REPEATABLE READ transaction
> isolation. I can't live without that when it comes having a stable vie
On Wed, 2005-11-09 at 19:35 -0600, Tony Caduto wrote:
> simply better than PostgreSQL: Two-Phase commit (ok, that is gone with
> PG 8.1), but the second is a SNAPSHOT / REPEATABLE READ transaction
> isolation. I can't live without that when it comes having a stable view
> of data during one tra
simply better than PostgreSQL: Two-Phase commit (ok, that is gone with
PG 8.1), but the second is a SNAPSHOT / REPEATABLE READ transaction
isolation. I can't live without that when it comes having a stable view
of data during one transaction, or did that change with 8.1? Is there
now a SNAPHOST
