Re: Strange result using transactions

On 3/27/07, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> "Matthijs Melissen" <melissen(at)phil(dot)uu(dot)nl> writes:
> > I am executing the following queries (id has a unique key):
> > 1) begin;
> > 1) delete from forum where id = 20;
> > 1) insert into forum (id, name) values (20, 'test');
> > 2) delete from forum where id = 20;
> > 1) commit;
>
> > The problem is that process 2 gets the message 'DELETE 0'. I would
> expect
> > him to get the message 'DELETE 1'.
>
> Why do you find that strange? Process 1 hasn't committed its insert yet.
>
>
I think what he is saying that *after* txn 1 commits, txn 2 does not see the
record inserted by txn1. Isn't that a fair point ? I mean txn 2 can see the
DELETE operation of txn 1, but can not see the INSERT operation of the
same transaction.

Thanks,
Pavan

--

EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com