pg.ddx.io  pgsql-sql@postgresql.org mailing list archive  
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
isolation level
3+ messages / 3 participants
[nested] [flat]

* isolation level
@ 2004-05-13 18:13  Jaime Casanova <el_vigia_ec@hotmail.com>
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread

From: Jaime Casanova @ 2004-05-13 18:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: pgsql-sql

Hi all, is there a way to set the isolation level  to something like the sql 
standard dirty read.

Thanx in advance,
Jaime Casanova

_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail




^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 3+ messages in thread

* Re: isolation level
@ 2004-05-13 18:24  Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to>
  parent: Jaime Casanova <el_vigia_ec@hotmail.com>
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread

From: Bruno Wolff III @ 2004-05-13 18:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jaime Casanova <el_vigia_ec@hotmail.com>; +Cc: pgsql-sql

On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 18:13:23 +0000,
  Jaime Casanova <el_vigia_ec@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all, is there a way to set the isolation level  to something like the 
> sql standard dirty read.

No. There will be a way to use the standard name in a SET command, but
you will actaully get READ COMMITTED isolation (which is the next step up).



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 3+ messages in thread

* Re: isolation level
@ 2004-05-14 05:26  Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>
  parent: Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread

From: Greg Stark @ 2004-05-14 05:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to>; +Cc: Jaime Casanova <el_vigia_ec@hotmail.com>; pgsql-sql


Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to> writes:

> On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 18:13:23 +0000,
>   Jaime Casanova <el_vigia_ec@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi all, is there a way to set the isolation level  to something like the 
> > sql standard dirty read.
> 
> No. There will be a way to use the standard name in a SET command, but
> you will actaully get READ COMMITTED isolation (which is the next step up).

I wonder how hard this would be to implement. It doesn't seem like it should
be very hard.

It would be very convenient for debugging and for checking on the progress of
large batch updates or loads.

-- 
greg




^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 3+ messages in thread


end of thread, other threads:[~2004-05-14 05:26 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-05-13 18:13 isolation level Jaime Casanova <el_vigia_ec@hotmail.com>
2004-05-13 18:24 ` Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to>
2004-05-14 05:26   ` Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>

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