On Thu, 2006-06-29 at 14:27 +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > 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.
Agreed, the ordering is irrelevant. Deferring the snapshot provides you with the most accurate *and* consistent view of the database. -- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
