On Wednesday, April 15, 2015, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 08:00:38PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote: > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/static/transaction-iso.html > > > > Table 13-1 shows the SQL standard isolation levels and what is and is not > > guaranteed. Then the text goes on to explain how our implementation > differs > > from that table. Is there any opposition to actually adding a similar > table, > > 13-2, probably right after the paragraph, with the same columns, three > rows, > > and the corresponding possible/not-possible cell values? > > Yes, it does make sense to have a table that properly matches the > Postgres implementation. Should I write a patch or would you like to? > > I'll take a crack at it. David J.
