X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E78E95282B
	for <pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Sun, 12 Jun 2005 23:16:49 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 65487-02
	for <pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 13 Jun 2005 02:16:41 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from wproxy.gmail.com (wproxy.gmail.com [64.233.184.202])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DA3852856
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Sun, 12 Jun 2005 23:16:40 -0300 (ADT)
Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 68so1009414wri
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Sun, 12 Jun 2005 19:16:45 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com;
	h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
	b=obh5T7FrwVBdHEU0OFGrptyBywWa3aaQYAspW7lGtjv4/5A1fSk7RHu96qWHbAMN9CRf464M1O7dZYmjznm6HKbZdln0+QzpSJ6FLf2CBxC2pmU5dFIGe7cCh3wmcG1NLbDcToRemLjJkP6M2RGgWgc/apyoAPsf/SOWgKA5WU8=
Received: by 10.54.33.44 with SMTP id g44mr2247389wrg;
	Sun, 12 Jun 2005 19:16:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.54.5.69 with HTTP; Sun, 12 Jun 2005 19:16:44 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <71038fca0506121916764f5b33@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 10:16:44 +0800
From: Daniel Roth <dan.c.roth@gmail.com>
Reply-To: Daniel Roth <dan.c.roth@gmail.com>
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: predicate locking
In-Reply-To: <23768.1118588642@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <71038fca05061203395e5a2613@mail.gmail.com>
	<23768.1118588642@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.024 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=RCVD_BY_IP
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200506/156
X-Sequence-Number: 21757

Hi Tom

Apologies for my previous double post.

In "12.2.2.1. Serializable Isolation versus True Serializability"

It sates: "To guarantee true mathematical serializability, it is
necessary for a database system to enforce predicate locking, which
means that a transaction cannot insert or modify a row that would have
matched the WHERE condition of a query in another concurrent
transaction"

Now that is exactly whats happens when you use SERIALIZABLE is MSSQL.

So, by the postgres help documentation's definition of predicate
locking, MSSQL does predicate locking.

All I am trying to do is correct the help documentation - 12.2.2.1 "so
far as we are aware no other production DBMS does either."

Regards,

Daniel Roth

On 6/12/05, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Daniel Roth <dan.c.roth@gmail.com> writes:
> > But MSSQL (SQL Server) does predicate locking.
>=20
> > Places a range lock on the data set, preventing other users from
> > updating or inserting rows into the data set until the transaction is
> > complete. This is the most restrictive of the four isolation levels.
>=20
> Range locks are a far cry from general predicate locks.
>=20
>                        regards, tom lane
>=20
> PS: kindly don't email me privately while posting the same message to
> the lists.  You think I have time to answer things twice?
>