Re: Serializable Isolation without blocking

Simon Riggs wrote:
> It wouldn't be 692 lines of code and even if it were the impact of that
> code would be such that it would need to be optional, since it would
> differ in definition from an existing SQL Standard isolation mode and it
> would have additional performance implications.

I thought it would be equal to the SQL standard Serializable mode, 
whereas what we currently call serializable is in fact not as strong as 
the SQL standard Serializable mode.

--   Heikki Linnakangas  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com