> "Tom" == Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tom> AFAIK, no commercial database does predicate locking either,
True ..
Tom> so we all fall short of true serializability. The usual
Tom> solution if you need the sort of behavior you're talking
Tom> about is to take a non-s
On Wednesday, Sep 24, 2003, at 19:10 Atlantic/Reykjavik, Bruce Momjian
wrote:
Philip Yarra wrote:
It's funny timing - I had to prepare a comparison between PostgreSQL
and
MySQL recently, explaining why we would prefer PostgreSQL. I know some
people here have issues with the MySQL crashme test res
Hannu,
- Original Message -
From: "Hannu Krosing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Heikki Tuuri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 10:00 PM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL not ACID compliant?
> Heikki Tuuri k
Zak Greant wrote:
> Thanks for the Cc: and for noticing the fixes!
>
> To be fair, Paul DuBois and Andrey Stroganov did the actual work - I
> only did some pointing and grunting. I am not sure that we have removed
> everything yet - I still need to do a full sweep of the docs. In any
> case, th
Philip Yarra wrote:
> It's funny timing - I had to prepare a comparison between PostgreSQL and
> MySQL recently, explaining why we would prefer PostgreSQL. I know some
> people here have issues with the MySQL crashme test results, but I have to
> say I found it possibly one of the best postgreSQ
Heikki Tuuri kirjutas P, 21.09.2003 kell 12:51:
> Tom,
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Heikki Tuuri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 10:3
th MySQL-4.0.15 with the default
my.cnf settings, and no deadlocks were generated.
Best regards,
Heikki
..
List: postgresql-general
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL not ACID compliant?
From: Florian Weimer
Date: 2003-09-20 20:33:11
[Download message RAW]
"sc
Tom,
- Original Message -
From: "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Heikki Tuuri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 10:32 AM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL not ACID compliant?
> "Heikki Tuuri&q
"Heikki Tuuri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> if you set the transaction isolation level SERIALIZABLE in MySQL/InnoDB,
> then InnoDB uses next-key locking in every SELECT, and transactions really
> are serializable in the mathematical sense.
My understanding is that next-key locking only helps when
th MySQL-4.0.15 with the default
my.cnf settings, and no deadlocks were generated.
Best regards,
Heikki
..
List: postgresql-general
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL not ACID compliant?
From: Florian Weimer
Date: 2003-09-20 20:33:11
[Download message RAW]
"sc
Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's worth elaborating on the answers here
Agreed.
> This also begs two other questions.
> 1. What, _exactly_, is the aggregate select getting?
> The assumption made in Florian's article is that
> "SELECT COUNT(*) from items"
> i
Quoth [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Lane):
> Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Is this a bug, or is SQLxx serializability defined in different terms?
>
> Strictly speaking, we do not guarantee serializability because we do not
> do predicate locking. See for example
> http://archives.postgres
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is this a bug, or is SQLxx serializability defined in different terms?
Strictly speaking, we do not guarantee serializability because we do not
do predicate locking. See for example
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2003-01/msg01581.php
AFA
"scott.marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Postgresql supports Serializable transactions, which are 100% ACID
> compliant.
How can I activate it? 8-)
Yes, I know about SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL SERIALIZABLE, please
read on.
Given the two tables:
CREATE TABLE items (item INTEGER);
CR
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
I need a hug.
*HUG*
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list
In an attempt to throw the authorities off his trail, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Joshua D.
Drake") transmitted:
> PostgreSQL does not support read uncommited and repeatable read
> isolation levels? If that is so... then PostgreSQL is NOT ACID
> compliant?
Are you certain that the source of the informati
Hello,
Actually if you really want to scare them.
1. Use Innodb
2. Create 5000 inserts with at least 5k of data. The table needs to have
a primary key.
3. Insert the 5000 records for 50 connections (250,000 inserts).
4. Watch the deadlocks fly.
They didn't believe me. Then the guy tried it li
It's funny timing - I had to prepare a comparison between PostgreSQL and
MySQL recently, explaining why we would prefer PostgreSQL. I know some
people here have issues with the MySQL crashme test results, but I have to
say I found it possibly one of the best postgreSQL advertisements
available.
Hello,
It wasn't so much that I believed them, as that I spent an hour
digging through PDF's written by guys who look like RMS trying to find
the answer to a yes or no question. Are you aware that these guys don't
believe in a yes or no question? There is always "conditions". I am feeling
much
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Sorry guys I made the unbelievable mistake of talking on the #mysql
> channel today. Can you believe that they
> actually feel that the fact that you can insert data outside the
> boundaries of the data type (int for example) and
> mySQL
Hello,
Sorry guys I made the unbelievable mistake of talking on the #mysql
channel today. Can you believe that they
actually feel that the fact that you can insert data outside the
boundaries of the data type (int for example) and
mySQL won't throw an exception is still valid ACID compliance.
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I just read a rather disturbing post
> PostgreSQL does not support read uncommited and repeatable read
> isolation levels? If that is so... then PostgreSQL is NOT ACID compliant?
Why do you find that disturbing? Read uncommitted is the ver
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I just read a rather disturbing post
>
> PostgreSQL does not support read uncommited and repeatable read
> isolation levels? If that is so... then PostgreSQL is NOT ACID compliant?
>
> What is the real deal on this?
Postgresql
Hello,
I just read a rather disturbing post
PostgreSQL does not support read uncommited and repeatable read
isolation levels? If that is so... then PostgreSQL is NOT ACID compliant?
What is the real deal on this?
Sincerley,
Joshua Drake
--
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth Postgre
24 matches
Mail list logo
