X-Original-To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org Received: from candle.pha.pa.us (momjian.navpoint.com [207.106.42.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCBAD475FC6 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:57:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from pgman@localhost) by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) id h2I0vCj04681; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:57:12 -0500 (EST) From: Bruce Momjian Message-Id: <200303180057.h2I0vCj04681@candle.pha.pa.us> Subject: Re: Read Committed isolation In-Reply-To: <20030304125718.W74791-100000@iguana.simplexity.net> To: Oliver Crow Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:57:12 -0500 (EST) Cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL99 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Archive-Number: 200303/32 X-Sequence-Number: 1710 I guess the big question is whether we want to be teaching isolation level concepts in our manual. It is a standard database concept. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Oliver Crow wrote: > > Hi all, > > It seems to me that the PostgreSQL user's manual could be clearer on the > consequences of using the Read Committed isolation level. > > It says "The partial transaction isolation provided by Read Committed > mode is adequate for many applications" ... "However, for applications > that do complex queries and updates, it may be necessary to guarantee a > more rigorously consistent view of the database". > > It does not say what types of transactions will cause problems in Read > Committed mode, or what the consequences of those problems might be. > This is a point on which the manual ought to be explicit ... the potential > for intermittent creation of database inconsistencies is serious. For > example, if information from a select is passed via the application to an > update, the transaction could reintroduce stale information. > > This message provides some good explanation with examples: > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2002-04/msg00150.php > > > It also speaks clearly about when a serializable transaction may need to > be repeated, and the possible trade off between using serializable or > SELECT FOR UPDATE. Could an edited version of that message be included in > the manual? (I'd be willing to assist with editing) > > > Thanks, Oliver > > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html > -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073