From: Jeroen T. Vermeulen <jtv@xs4all.nl>
To: Adriaan van Os <postgres@microbizz.nl>
Cc: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Progress of asynchronous queries
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 15:57:38 +0700 (ICT)
Message-ID: <6009.125.24.242.104.1158397058.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <450AA301.9020408@microbizz.nl>
References: <450A6A87.2030808@microbizz.nl>
<450AA301.9020408@microbizz.nl>
On Fri, September 15, 2006 19:56, Adriaan van Os wrote:
> Besides, when more than one user is connected, multiple SQL commands may
> behave different than a
> single SQL command
> (<http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/static/transaction-iso.html;)
But you'd be doing this in a transaction anyway: you can't declare a
cursor without starting a transaction first. Yes, you could deliberately
declare "WITH HOLD" and keep using your cursor after commiting or aborting
the transaction. But even then, so far as I know, the cursor presents a
snapshot view of its result set so you get an effective isolation level of
"serializable" even then.
The number of users has nothing to do with the matter--if that were a real
concern, you'd be using a serializable transaction anyway, so you wouldn't
have to worry about it even if cursors did behave as "read committed."
Jeroen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org
Cc: jtv@xs4all.nl, postgres@microbizz.nl
Subject: Re: Progress of asynchronous queries
In-Reply-To: <6009.125.24.242.104.1158397058.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox