Re: Should we SetQuerySnapshot() between actions of a rule?

From: Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Should we SetQuerySnapshot() between actions of a rule?
Date: 2003-05-01 17:59:00
Message-ID: 20030501175900.GO10033@libertyrms.info
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 01:35:20PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Can't you get the consistent snapshot by running SERIALIZABLE anyway?
>
> Yeah, but that may do more than you want (like force a rollback on
> update conflicts...)

True enough, but that's the same problematic choice you have in an
interactive session (unless I misunderstood).

A

--
----
Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street
Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info> M2P 2A8
+1 416 646 3304 x110

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Walker 2003-05-01 18:20:57 Re: Attribute must be GROUPed.... ?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-05-01 17:35:20 Re: Should we SetQuerySnapshot() between actions of a rule?