2010/5/25 Florian Pflug <f...@phlo.org>: > On May 25, 2010, at 20:18 , Dan Ports wrote: > >> T3, which is a read-only transaction, sees the incremented date and an >> empty list of receipts. But T1 later commits a new entry in the >> receipts table with the old date. No serializable ordering allows this. >> >> However, if T3 hadn't performed its read, there'd be no problem; we'd >> just serialize T1 before T2 and no one would be the wiser. > > Hm, so in fact SSI sometimes allows the database to be inconsistent, but only > as long as nobody tries to observe it?
I would not call this an inconsistent state: it would become inconsistent only after someone (e.g., T3) has observed it _and_ T1 commits. Nicolas -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
