> strict serializability doesn't imply idempotency I think we're probably getting at the same thing, but I do want to clarify a bit. A Strict Serializable hist

> strict serializability doesn't imply idempotency I think we're probably getting at the same thing, but I do want to clarify a bit. A Strict Serializable history, like a Serializable one, requires equivalence to a total order of transactions. That's clearly not true for etcd+jetcd: no possible order of transactions can allow (e.g.) a transaction to read from its own future. It's totally fine to submit non-idempotent transactions against a Serializable system: systems which actually provide Serializable will execute known-committed transactions exactly once. Plenty of other databases pass this test; etcd+jetcd does not. This system is simply not Serializable.