That only applies for the read committed isolation level. It seems to me that at least serializable should not show inconsistent state in this situation?
What does that have to do with serializable transactions?
"The Serializable isolation level provides the strictest transaction isolation. This level emulates serial transaction execution for all committed transactions; as if transactions had been executed one after another, serially, rather than concurrently."
If you don't get the right behavior with serializable transactions, as you seem to be claiming, it seems to me that serializable transactions should be considered buggy. In this case they do not provide the guarantees they are claimed to provide.
