I had the impression that since they are chained together, somehow they run “tighter” 😂.
Thanks for pointing out that mistake.
On Apr 1, 2021, at 11:25 PM, Dave Cramer <davecramer@postgres.rocks> wrote:
CTE's don't change the isolation level. I'm not sure what you are getting at here ?
Dave Cramer
www.postgres.rocks
On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 at 11:20, Glen Huang <heyhgl@gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry, my mistake. I misunderstood serializable. Are queries in a CTE equivalent to those in a repeatable read transaction?
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 Cramer
www.postgres.rocks
On 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?
