From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Marsh Ray <marsh5143(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Commit visibility guarantees |
Date: | 2009-05-18 23:57:07 |
Message-ID: | 20090518235707.GR10339@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Marsh Ray escribió:
> On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > Marsh Ray <marsh5143(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> >> The central question: So if I successfully commit an update
> >> transaction on one connection, then instantaneously issue a select on
> >> another previously-opened connection, under what circumstances am I
> >> guaranteed that the select will see the effects of the update?
> >
> > If the select is using a snapshot taken later than the commit, it will
> > see the effects of the update.
>
> Great! Just the kind of definitive answer I was looking for.
>
> Now I just need to find a comprehensive list of all the things that
> could cause an older snapshot to be retained, and ensure that none of
> them could possibly be occurring on this connection.
On a serializable transaction all queries will use the same snapshot
taken when the first query is executed. Otherwise (read committed), a
new query always gets a fresh one.
(Old snapshots are also used for stuff like cursors that remain open,
but that's not the case here.)
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nagy Zoltan | 2009-05-19 02:00:10 | Re: array/function question |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-05-18 23:49:26 | Re: array/function question |