From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Erik Wasser <erik.wasser@iquer.net>
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Are long term never commited SELECT statements are a problem?
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 12:13:34 -0400
Message-ID: <20050721161334.GH24366@alvh.no-ip.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200507211740.57999.erik.wasser@iquer.net>
References: <200507211557.58822.erik.wasser@iquer.net>
<20050721151811.GA513@winnie.fuhr.org>
<200507211740.57999.erik.wasser@iquer.net>
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 05:40:57PM +0200, Erik Wasser wrote:
> > When a transaction is on the serializable level, a SELECT query sees
> > only data committed before the transaction began; it never sees either
> > uncommitted data or changes committed during transaction execution by
> > concurrent transactions. (However, the SELECT does see the effects of
> > previous updates executed within its own transaction, even though they
> > are not yet committed.)
> Why do I see in the first transaction data from the commited second
> transaction? Doesn't prove that the documentation on the above URL
> wrong?
Because it says "in the serializable level," which they acquire when you
execute "SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL SERIALIZABLE".
--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]alvh.no-ip.org>)
Officer Krupke, what are we to do?
Gee, officer Krupke, Krup you! (West Side Story, "Gee, Officer Krupke")
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-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org, erik.wasser@iquer.net
Subject: Re: Are long term never commited SELECT statements are a problem?
In-Reply-To: <20050721161334.GH24366@alvh.no-ip.org>
* 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