Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>
> > One idea is to require FOR UPDATE on the cursor --- while that prevents
> > other transactions from changing the cursor, it doesn't deal with the
> > current transaction modifying the table outside the cursor.
>
> That would only keep existing rows from being deleted but not new rows
> from being added.
>
> > One idea is
> > to have UPDATE/DELETE WHERE CURRENT OF behave like UPDATE/DELETE do now
> > when they find a row that is locked by another transaction --- they wait
> > to see if the transaction commits or aborts, then if committed they
> > follow the tid to the newly updated row, check the WHERE clause to see
> > if it still is satisfied, then perform the update. (Is this correct?)
>
> Surely it would have to do something like that, but that's a matter of the
> transaction isolation, not the sensitivity. It doesn't do anything to
> address the potential problems I mentioned.
Well, a unique constraint on the row would see your other INSERT. I
don't see how making an INSERT visible in the cursor would help us, and
I don't see how we would implement that except by rerunning the query
for each fetch, which seems like a bad idea.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
