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: