From: | Bob Smith <bsmith(at)h-e(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-sql <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Transaction isolation and UNION queries |
Date: | 2003-02-28 02:40:46 |
Message-ID: | 0A27C204-4AC6-11D7-978F-0003933DD370@h-e.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
I have a question about transaction isolation that I can't find an
answer to in the docs. I'm working with a database that has some data
split over two tables. One table is the ultimate destination for all
the data, the other is a "pending" table which holds rows during data
entry. Rows from the pending table are moved to the permanent table
once data entry is complete. For some purposes I want to see rows from
both tables, so I do a UNION. My question is, with only read committed
isolation, could a commit by another transaction make changes appear
between the separate parts of the UNION query? In other words, could a
row appear to be missing or duplicated because a transaction that was
moving the row from pending to permanent committed while the UNION was
running?
Thanks!
Bob Smith
Hammett & Edison, Inc.
bsmith(at)h-e(dot)com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Shanmugasundaram Doraisamy | 2003-02-28 03:09:10 | shared memory usage - reg. |
Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2003-02-27 22:50:48 | Re: pg_hba.conf |