From: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | "Jeroen T(dot) Vermeulen" <jtv(at)xs4all(dot)nl> |
Cc: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Stupid question on Read Committed Isolation Level |
Date: | 2004-01-29 19:27:06 |
Message-ID: | 20040129152653.C6922@ganymede.hub.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Jeroen T. Vermeulen wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 02:07:25PM -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> >
> > "If two such transactions concurrently try to change the balance of
> > account 12345, we clearly want the second transaction to start from the
> > updated version of the account's row"
> >
> > To me, I read this as the first transaction has not yet committed, but the
> > second sees its changes ... so if second commitst, and first hasn't yet,
> > second commits with seconds changes + firsts changes, but what if first
> > aborts?
>
> There's the rub--it doesn't say the part about "has not yet committed,"
> although I can see how you could read it that way.
I would say that "two such transactions concurrently" heavily implies
such, no? :)
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2004-01-29 19:56:28 | Re: postgresql.org reverse lookup fail |
Previous Message | Jeroen T. Vermeulen | 2004-01-29 18:34:57 | Re: Stupid question on Read Committed Isolation Level |