Re: [BUGS] Status of issue 4593
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [BUGS] Status of issue 4593 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 496C5D3C.5020101@gmx.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [BUGS] Status of issue 4593 ("Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>) |
Ответы |
Re: [BUGS] Status of issue 4593
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Kevin Grittner wrote: > Well, that's a PostgreSQL-specific point of view, although I > understand the point of maintaining that guarantee. (In Microsoft SQL > Server and Sybase ASE we actually had to run our read-only web > application at the READ UNCOMMITTED transaction isolation level > because so many SELECT queries were rolled back when they deadlocked > with the traffic from replication when they were all running at READ > COMMITTED.) Per SQL standard, READ UNCOMMITTED mode requires READ ONLY transaction access mode, so you couldn't do FOR UPDATE there anyway. (Of course, FOR UPDATE is not in the standard.) > If you run this at SERIALIZABLE transaction isolation level, would > PostgreSQL currently roll something back before returning rows in an > order different than that specified by the ORDER BY clause? Yes, but using FOR UPDATE is kind of pointless in serializable mode.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: