Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YnDxC-0007Yh-AK for pgsql-docs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 22:26:10 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YnDxB-00054u-RB for pgsql-docs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 22:26:09 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:1501:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YnDxB-00054n-7V for pgsql-docs@postgresql.org; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 22:26:09 +0000 Received: from momjian.us ([72.94.173.45]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1YnDx8-0004yK-Nr for pgsql-docs@postgresql.org; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 22:26:07 +0000 Received: from bruce by momjian.us with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YnDx5-0003D4-Pr; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 18:26:03 -0400 Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 18:26:03 -0400 From: Bruce Momjian To: "David G. Johnston" Cc: Kevin Grittner , Peter Eisentraut , "pgsql-docs@postgresql.org" Subject: Re: Add a new table for Transaction Isolation? Message-ID: <20150428222603.GD31727@momjian.us> References: <20150425200255.GD17791@momjian.us> <279680020.4245099.1429994867712.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <20150425205700.GE17791@momjian.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-docs Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-docs-owner@postgresql.org On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 02:14:37PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote: > On Saturday, April 25, 2015, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 08:47:47PM +0000, 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't even process that. > > > > After writing my thoughts this makes sense now.  Prohibited means that both > tables would say not possible.  Possible means both tables would say possible.  > Allowed but not possible means our implementation says not possible and the > standard says it is possible.  The fourth possibility, not allowed but > possible, would mean we are not standard conforming and since we are it never > appears. > > I would probably choose "not possible (contra-SQL)" and emphasize our > implementation and footnote the two differences. I went with "Allowed, but not in PG" for those two fields, and removed the extra rows I had added. You can see the output here: http://momjian.us/expire/transaction-iso.html -- Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs