From: | Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> |
---|---|
To: | bgolda <e9syuk002(at)sneakemail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Isolation level in a function |
Date: | 2006-01-24 10:22:58 |
Message-ID: | 20060124102258.GA18870@wolff.to |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 02:05:41 -0800,
bgolda <e9syuk002(at)sneakemail(dot)com> wrote:
> Hello, this is my first post, please don't shoot...
>
> I was just experimenting with transactions (PG 8.1), and there is
> something which puzzles me. If i write 'SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL
> SERIALIZABLE;' in my function, it breaks. Error informs me, that it was
> executed after some query, while it is a first command in the function
> after declares and begin!
Because there is already a transaction which the function is executing in
and for which a query has been started (e.g. the one that calls the function).
> However, it seems to work perfectly well if I change in the same place
> the system variable, responsible for the transaction level. I used
> set_config, if I remember well. The function is only for a DBA task, so
> it seems to be all right to use set_config, isn't it?
>
> And my questions are:
> 1) Why in the first case it is not possible? Is it an error or am I
> just doing something wrong? Should have set something before?
> 2) Are there any downsides of the mentioned solution (changing
> transaction_isolation value), except of the fact that it is an
> administration command and should not be used :)?
>
> Thanks,
>
> _-_-_-_
> Bart Golda
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | FERREIRA, William (VALTECH) | 2006-01-24 10:33:56 | execution plan : Oracle vs PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2006-01-24 09:57:44 | Re: Surrogate keys (Was: enums) |