| From: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | snpe <snpe(at)snpe(dot)co(dot)yu> |
| Cc: | "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com>, Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: problem with new autocommit config parameter and jdbc |
| Date: | 2002-09-10 21:50:52 |
| Message-ID: | 20020910144611.K28261-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-jdbc |
On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, snpe wrote:
> On Tuesday 10 September 2002 07:46 pm, scott.marlowe wrote:
> > What if it's a select for update? IF that failed because of a timout on a
> > lock, shouldn't the transaction fail? Or a select into? Either of those
> > should make a transaction fail, and they're just selects.
> Ok.Any lock or update,delete, insert (and all ddl command) start transaction
> (select for update, too), but simple select no.Select don't change data and no
> transaction - this process cannot lost consistency (any command with error
> too).
At least in serializable isolation level you'll probably get different
results if a transaction commits between those two selects based on
whether a transaction is started or not. Should two serializable selects
in the same session see the same snapshot when autocommit is off?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Oliver Elphick | 2002-09-10 22:08:00 | Re: |
| Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 2002-09-10 21:27:32 | Re: Rule updates and PQcmdstatus() issue |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephan Szabo | 2002-09-10 23:25:10 | Re: problem with new autocommit config parameter and jdbc |
| Previous Message | Daniel Serodio | 2002-09-10 21:01:05 | Jar file's manifest |