On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 08:40:40PM +0000, Kevin Grittner wrote: > > And, for reasons given above, I really question whether such a > > table doesn't do more harm than good. Even those citing the paper > > by Berenson, et al., often miss the text in *that* paper about what > > the actual definition of serializable transactions in the standard > > is, and instead focus on the quick-to-read tables of how the > > misinterpretation of serializable transactions based on the > > standard's table of phenomena (which the paper dubs "ANOMALY > > SERIALIZABLE") differs from truly serializable behavior. > > > > People do love tables like this, which makes providing them > > tempting; but when a short, clean table is available they often > > seem less inclined to take the trouble to read the real information > > the table summarizes -- and they come away with distorted and > > incorrect ideas about the subject matter. > > I don't think we can abandon the table --- people have enough trouble > figuring this out, including me, and without the table, it will be even > harder. > > What I have done is to add two rows and one column to the table, and > changed the surrounding text to more clearly reference the table. You > can see the output here, and the SGML patch is attached: > > http://momjian.us/expire/transaction-iso.html Need to add "Serialization Anomalies" to the previous section's definitions list. ​Pondering whether something like: "Possible (not in PG)" and avoiding the additional rows would make reading the table easier. David J.
