On Wednesday 23 March 2016 11:50:59 Hugo Chargois wrote: > > ... MySQL's REPEATABLE READ may have > it flaws, it may cause repeating bugs because that level is a bit awry, > with its reads and writes that don't work the same, but all in all, it IS a > higher isolation level than READ COMMITTED. It DOES provide the REPEATABLE > READ guarantee (for reads) that READ COMMITTED doesn't have. >
As I have shown, this is only true under certain conditions. > > But I still want to insist on the fact that the bug discussed in the ticket > is quite independent from the choice of the default isolation level. Sure, > setting a lesser default isolation level fixes it coincidentally, but it > can also be fixed (in two different ways, even) with a better use of the > same isolation level. It shouldn't by itself justify the change of the > default isolation level. This is a sentiment I agree with (except for the "coincindental" qualification). The change of isolation level is intended to solve a whole class of bugs, most of them in user code; the bug that prompted this discussion is merely one example, and by itself wouldn't justify the change. Shai.
