> You either don't know what serializable does or trying to mislead the reader. There is zero reason to use searializable here.

If you're processing financial transactions you want your isolation level to be serialisable. As the order in which the transactions are processed matters.

> 5ms latency is unrealistic. Unless you use wifi or you database is in another datacenter.

Even with 1ms latency. Amdahl's law will still make you cap out at a theoretical 1000 TPS if you have 100% row lock contention.

> No they are not common at all. You probably invented them just to make pg look bad.

I'm confused. I invented transactions? Are you saying you don't use transactions with rollback when you use PG?

> If you're processing financial transactions you want your isolation level to be serialisable. As the order in which the transactions are processed matters.

So you don't know what serializable level is.

> Even with 1ms latency. Amdahl's law will still make you cap out at a theoretical 1000 TPS if you have 100% row lock contention.

So why use 5ms and 10ms for examples?

> I'm confused. I invented transactions?

"Interactive" transactions.