Thomas Steinmaurer wrote:

>>I wrote
>>Sigh. Our consistency transactions are better than repeatable read -
>>they don't allow phantoms as defined in the standard. They do allow
>>other non-serializable operations. So they're between repeatable read
>>and serializable.
>
>
> Did you mean consistency or concurrency transactions when talking about
> repeatable read above?
>

Concurrency. Sorry.

Ann