Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0C7E475EE2
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 03:33:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from fzkmail2.fzk.de (fzkmail2.fzk.de [141.52.27.52])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B69AB475C8B
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 03:33:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: FROM resy5.fzk.de BY fzkmail2.fzk.de ;
 Fri Oct 18 09:33:10 2002 +0200
Received: œby rodos.fzk.de with ESMTP (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.7.1) id JAA13445; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:33:10 +0200 (METDST)
Message-ID: <3DAFB935.5E6980B1@rodos.fzk.de>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:33:09 +0200
From: Christoph Haller <ch@rodos.fzk.de>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (X11; I; HP-UX B.10.20 9000/780)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lud_nowhere_man@yahoo.com
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Locking that will delayed a SELECT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517
X-Archive-Number: 200210/205
X-Sequence-Number: 9922

>    Suppose I have a transaction (T1) which executes a
> complicated stored procedure. While T1 is executing,
> trasaction #2 (T2)  begins to execute.
>
>     T1 take more time to execute that T2 in such a way
> that T2 finished earlier than T1. The result is that
> t2 returns set of data before it can be modified by
> T1.
>
>    Given the above scenario. Is there a way such that
> while T2 will only read that value updated by T1 (i.e.
> T2 must wait until T1 is finished) ? What locks should
> I used since a portion of T1 contains SELECT
> statements? Should I used the "SERIALIZABLE
> isolation".

What's wrong about this question?
I'm interested in an answer, too.

Regards, Christoph