Re: determine snapshot after obtaining locks for first statement - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: determine snapshot after obtaining locks for first statement
Date
Msg-id 603c8f070912170958s619ad3cey332b0a4f254138cd@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: determine snapshot after obtaining locks for first statement  ("Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>)
Responses Re: determine snapshot after obtaining locks for first statement  ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>)
Re: determine snapshot after obtaining locks for first statement  ("Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>)
Re: determine snapshot after obtaining locks for first statement  ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 12:51 PM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote:
> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
>> I'm not very sure what a clearer explanation would look like
>
> As a stab at it, how about?:
>
> This behavior makes Read Committed mode unsuitable for many UPDATE
> or DELETE commands with joins or subqueries

I don't think that's any clearer, though it is more disparaging.  :-)

Note we also say: "The partial transaction isolation provided by Read
Committed mode is adequate for many applications, and this mode is
fast and simple to use; however, it is not sufficient for all cases.
Applications that do complex queries and updates might require a more
rigorously consistent view of the database than Read Committed mode
provides."

...Robert


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: determine snapshot after obtaining locks for first statement
Next
From: "Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
Subject: Re: determine snapshot after obtaining locks for first statement