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 | C551F866-BADB-4CE1-B9D6-CE8C477811B8@gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Is replacing transactions with CTE a good idea? (Dave Cramer <davecramer@postgres.rocks>) |
| Список | pgsql-general |
Ah, I see what you mean. You still have to wrap a CTE inside a transaction to specify the isolation level? By default, queries in a CTE run with the read committed isolation level?
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: