On Saturday, April 25, 2015, David G. Johnston
wrote:
> On Saturday, April 25, 2015, Kevin Grittner > wrote:
>
>> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> > On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 07:45:35PM +, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>>
>> >> We could perhaps have the column header say "Non-Serializable
>> >> Behavior" or s
On Saturday, April 25, 2015, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 08:47:47PM +, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> > Maybe something like "Prohibited", "Allowed but not Possible", and
> > "Possible"? That would take a little explaining above, since our
> > documentation's table would be devia
On Saturday, April 25, 2015, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Bruce Momjian > wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 07:45:35PM +, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>
> >> We could perhaps have the column header say "Non-Serializable
> >> Behavior" or some such; but I think we need to define whatever
> >> term we use
On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 08:47:47PM +, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Maybe something like "Prohibited", "Allowed but not Possible", and
> "Possible"? That would take a little explaining above, since our
> documentation's table would be deviating from the standard's table
> in its word choice.
I can'
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 07:45:35PM +, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> We could perhaps have the column header say "Non-Serializable
>> Behavior" or some such; but I think we need to define whatever
>> term we use for the new column header.
>
> I don't think we can define the c
On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 07:45:35PM +, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> They never use the word anomaly (or its plural) in the standard
> (even though it is prevalent in the academic literature). See my
> earlier email for examples of how the standard describes the issue,
> but basically it just boils d
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 11:33:36AM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
>> Need to add "Serialization Anomalies" to the previous section's
>> definitions list.
>
> Uh, I am afraid the problem is that "Serialization Anomalies" is
> kind of defined by the standard in an odd way th
On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 11:33:36AM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 08:40:40PM +, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> > And, for reasons given above, I really question whether such a
> > table doesn't do more
On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 08:40:40PM +, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> > And, for reasons given above, I really question whether such a
> > table doesn't do more harm than good. Even those citing the paper
> > by Berenson, et al., often miss th
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 08:40:40PM +, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> And, for reasons given above, I really question whether such a
> table doesn't do more harm than good. Even those citing the paper
> by Berenson, et al., often miss the text in *that* paper about what
> the actual definition of seri
10 matches
Mail list logo
