Re: Is replacing transactions with CTE a good idea?



CTE's don't change the isolation level. I'm not sure what you are getting at here ?

Dave Cramer

www.postgres.rocks

On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 at 11:20, Glen Huang <heyhgl@gmail.com> wrote:

Sorry, my mistake. I misunderstood serializable. Are queries in a CTE equivalent to those in a repeatable read transaction?

On Apr 1, 2021, at 11:10 PM, Dave Cramer <davecramer@postgres.rocks> wrote:



On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 at 11:09, Glen Huang <heyhgl@gmail.com> wrote:

No, but are they equivalent to serializable transactions?

No, they are not. 

Dave Cramer

www.postgres.rocks

On Apr 1, 2021, at 11:04 PM, Dave Cramer <davecramer@postgres.rocks> wrote:



On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 at 10:50, Glen Huang <heyhgl@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi all,

From application’s standpoint, it seems using CTE saves a lot work. You no longer need to parse values out only to pass them back in, and only one round-trip to the db server.

If I’m not wrong, CTE is equivalent to serializable transactions? So I guess the downsize is that quarries can’t be run in parallel?

I do not think a CTE changes the isolation level. 

If I decide to replace all my transaction code with CTE, will I shoot myself in the foot down the road?

Dave Cramer

www.postgres.rocks