Re: Documenting serializable vs snapshot isolation levels
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Documenting serializable vs snapshot isolation levels |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 26455.1230922071@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение |
| Ответ на | Re: Documenting serializable vs snapshot isolation levels ("Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Documenting serializable vs snapshot isolation levels
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> writes:
>> What do you mean by referential integrity? I don't believe you can
>> construct a foreign key problem at any transaction isolation level.
> I mean that if someone attempts to maintain referential integrity with
> SQL code, without using explicit locks, it is not reliable.
> Presumably the implementation of foreign keys in PostgreSQL takes this
> into account and blocks the kind of behavior shown below. This
> behavior would not occur with true serializable transactions.
IIRC the RI code has to fudge the normal serializable-snapshot behavior
in order to guarantee no constraint violation --- it has to be aware of
concurrent changes that would otherwise be invisible to a serializable
transaction.
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: