On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 5:42 PM Surafel Temesgen <surafel3...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Simon, > Thank you for all the work you does
No problem. > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 5:02 PM Simon Riggs <simon.ri...@enterprisedb.com> > wrote: >> >> >> >> * Anomalies around use of CURRENT_TIMESTAMP are not discussed or resolved. >> Probably need to add a test that end_timestamp > start_timestamp or ERROR, >> which effectively enforces serializability. >> > > > This scenario doesn't happen. Yes, I think it can. The current situation is that the Start or End is set to the Transaction Start Timestamp. So if t2 starts before t1, then if t1 creates a row and t2 deletes it then we will have start=t1 end=t2, but t2<t1 Your tests don't show that because it must happen concurrently. We need to add an isolation test to show this, or to prove it doesn't happen. > There are no possibility of a record being deleted or updated before inserting Agreed, but that was not the point. -- Simon Riggs http://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
