Re: Is replacing transactions with CTE a good idea?
От | Glen Huang |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Is replacing transactions with CTE a good idea? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 7CFF1F8C-E83D-4A68-AD89-6DD3FE2E2493@gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Is replacing transactions with CTE a good idea? (Dave Cramer <davecramer@postgres.rocks>) |
Ответы |
Re: Is replacing transactions with CTE a good idea?
|
Список | pgsql-general |
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 Cramerwww.postgres.rocksOn 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 Cramerwww.postgres.rocks
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: