Re: Strange Behavior with Serializable Transcations

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.

Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout   <kleptog@svana.org>   http://svana.org/kleptog/
> From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.