Jeroen T. Vermeulen wrote:
> On Sun, September 17, 2006 17:22, Adriaan van Os wrote:
>
>>> But you'd be doing this in a transaction anyway: you can't declare a
>>> cursor without starting a transaction first.Yes, you could deliberately
>>> declare "WITH HOLD" and keep using your cursor after commiting or
>>> aborting
>>> the transaction. But even then, so far as I know, the cursor presents a
>>> snapshot view of its result set so you get an effective isolation level
>>> of
>>> "serializable" even then.
>> No, carefully read
>> <http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/static/transaction-iso.html>.
>
> I'm familiar with the document, thank you, but if you're not prepared to
> give any detail beyond "no" then I remain unconvinced. What part exactly
> do you disagree with? That cursors can't be declared without beginning a
> transaction first? That cursors present a snapshot view of their result
> set? That that amounts to an effective isolation level of "serializable?"
I now read that Postgres only supports FOR READ ONLY cursors. So, yes, for those cursors you are
right and my remark doesn't apply.
Still, the issue I raised was about tracing the progress of a SQL command in general, not about the
specific case of using a cursor instead.
Regards,
Adriaan van Os
