On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 04:16:22PM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote: > I'm attaching an alternative proposal, with changes for the following > reasons: > > (1) The complete re-wrap of that first paragraph made it really hard > to see what the actual change to the documentation was. I would > rather change it like this and have a separate patch to re-wrap the > paragraph (with no content change) or maybe restrict the reformatting > to two or three lines. > > (2) The second paragraph starts with "There may still be > serialization anomalies involving aborted transactions" which seems > a bit alarming, seems to bend the definition of serialization > anomalies and seems odd to pick out for special attention when the > same could be said of data read in transactions at other isolation > levels if those transactions roll back from a deferred constraint or > a write conflict. > > (3) There is a significant exception to this caveat which I felt > would be useful to people who wanted to generate big reports without > waiting for transaction commit: deferrable read-only transactions > offer applications a way to count on data as soon as it is read. > > I'm not sure whether the omission of this from the docs should be > considered a big enough hazard to merit a back-patch, or if it should > just be committed to HEAD.
Patch applied to git head. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
