Re: Row-level Locks & SERIALIZABLE transactions, postgres vs. Oracle
От | Greg Stark |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Row-level Locks & SERIALIZABLE transactions, postgres vs. Oracle |
Дата | |
Msg-id | AANLkTinRIpEFSkVG-u_6U2wGCfQ9_DJ-D9sU0E9BL33Q@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Row-level Locks & SERIALIZABLE transactions, postgres vs. Oracle (Florian Pflug <fgp@phlo.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: Row-level Locks & SERIALIZABLE transactions, postgres
vs. Oracle
Re: Row-level Locks & SERIALIZABLE transactions, postgres vs. Oracle Re: Row-level Locks & SERIALIZABLE transactions, postgres vs. Oracle |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 10:25 PM, Florian Pflug <fgp@phlo.org> wrote: > C1: BEGIN > C1: SELECT * FROM t WHERE id = 1 FOR UPDATE > C2: BEGIN > C2: SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL SERIALIZABLE > C2: SELECT * FROM t -- Take snapshot before C1 commits > C1: COMMIT > C2: DELETE FROM t WHERE id = 1 > C2: COMMIT > Can you give an actual realistic example -- ie, not doing a select for update and then never updating the row or with an explanation of what the programmer is attempting to accomplish with such an unusual sequence? The rest of the post talks about FKs but I don't see any here... -- greg
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: