> Npgsql supports sending multiple SQL statements in a single packet via the extended protocol. This works fine, but when the second query SELECTs a value modified by the first's UPDATE, I'm getting a result as if the > UPDATE hasn't yet occurred.
Looks like the first updating statement is not committed, assuming that the two statements run in different transactions.
I did try to prefix the message chain with an explicit transaction BEGIN (with the several different isolation levels) without a difference in behavior.
> The exact messages send by Npgsql are: > > Parse (UPDATE data SET name='foo' WHERE id=1), statement=unnamed > Describe (statement=unnamed) > Bind (statement=unnamed, portal=MQ0) > Parse (SELECT * FROM data WHERE id=1), statement=unnamed > Describe (statement=unnamed) > Bind (statement=unnamed, portal=MQ1) > Execute (portal=MQ0) > Close (portal=MQ0) > Execute (portal=MQ1) > Close (portal=MQ1) > Sync
I never used Npgsql so I don't know if there is something missing there. Would you need an explicit commit before closing MQ0?
I guess this is exactly my question to PostgreSQL... But unless I'm misunderstanding the transaction semantics I shouldn't need to commit the first UPDATE in order to see its effect in the second SELECT...
Also I am not in clear what "statement=unnamed" means, but it is used twice. Is it possible that the update is overwritten with select before it executes?
statement=unnamed means that the destination statement is the unnamed prepared statement (as described in http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/protocol-message-formats.html). Right after the Parse I bind the unnamed statement which I just parsed to cursor MQ0. In other words, Npgsql first parses the two queries and binds them to portals MQ0 and MQ1, and only then executes both portals
BTW: Do you see the change after update in your DB if you look into it with another tool (e.g. psql)?
That's a good suggestion, I'll try to check it out, thanks!
