Re: determine snapshot after obtaining locks for first statement
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: determine snapshot after obtaining locks for first statement |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4765.1261073585@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: determine snapshot after obtaining locks for first statement ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: determine snapshot after obtaining locks for first
statement
Re: determine snapshot after obtaining locks for firststatement |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes: > What is needed here is a layman's context of what isolation modes are > good for what type of operation. Neither your explanation or Tom's is > particularly useful except to say, "Crap, I might be screwed but I don't > know if I am... how do I find out?" If we had a simple way to characterize that, we'd not be having this discussion :-( One possibility is to try to list the risky cases. So far I can think of: * updates using a WHERE clause that tests columns being changed by other transactions * updates using subqueries/joins so that the result depends on other rows besides the one directly updated/deleted, and those other rows are subject to concurrent changes But I'm not sure this is a complete list, and an incomplete one might do more harm than good ... regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: