On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 20:55 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Hmm, what I gathered was that that's not changing any basic semantic > guarantees (and therefore is okay to control as a GUC). But I haven't > read the paper so maybe I'm missing something.
On second read of this comment: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-05/msg01128.php it says "reduce the frequency of serialization anomalies", which doesn't necessarily mean that it makes new guarantees, I suppose. I should have gone to the original source. Anyway, it's a moot point, because apparently that's just a possible step along the way toward true serializability, and doesn't need to be separately distinguished. Regards, Jeff Davis -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
