X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76F2E52A01 for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 13:23:21 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 02066-01 for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 16:23:12 +0000 (GMT) Received: from tigger.fuhr.org (tigger.fuhr.org [63.214.45.158]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C8B052836 for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 13:23:11 -0300 (ADT) Received: from winnie.fuhr.org (winnie.fuhr.org [10.1.0.1]) by tigger.fuhr.org (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j6LGN5r7018587 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 21 Jul 2005 10:23:07 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from mfuhr@winnie.fuhr.org) Received: from winnie.fuhr.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by winnie.fuhr.org (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j6LGN575046002; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 10:23:05 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from mfuhr@winnie.fuhr.org) Received: (from mfuhr@localhost) by winnie.fuhr.org (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id j6LGN4Jg045990; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 10:23:04 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from mfuhr) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 10:23:03 -0600 From: Michael Fuhr To: Erik Wasser Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Are long term never commited SELECT statements are a problem? Message-ID: <20050721162303.GA28287@winnie.fuhr.org> References: <200507211557.58822.erik.wasser@iquer.net> <20050721151811.GA513@winnie.fuhr.org> <200507211740.57999.erik.wasser@iquer.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200507211740.57999.erik.wasser@iquer.net> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.005 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200507/184 X-Sequence-Number: 22162 On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 05:40:57PM +0200, Erik Wasser wrote: > 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? No, it doesn't. The quote you posted refers to the SERIALIZABLE isolation level, but the default is READ COMMITTED. Unless you've changed the default (and it appears that you haven't), then transactions that don't set an isolation level will default to READ COMMITTED. The following command shows what isolation level the current transaction is using: SHOW transaction_isolation; Try your example again, but issue the following command in transaction 1 before doing anything else: SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL SERIALIZABLE; -- Michael Fuhr http://www.fuhr.org/~mfuhr/