| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Geert Jansen <geert(at)boskant(dot)nl> |
| Cc: | Michael Fuhr <mike(at)fuhr(dot)org>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Transaction isolation levels |
| Date: | 2005-07-09 15:30:44 |
| Message-ID: | 4773.1120923044@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Geert Jansen <geert(at)boskant(dot)nl> writes:
> For my curiosity, what is the reason that in read comitted mode MVCC can
> guarantee a consistent snapshot durign a query, while in serializable
> mode MVCC can guarantee it for a longer interval (the entire
> transaction). Are these different MVCC implementations, or is some kind
> of locking performed when executing queries in read committed mode?
It's the same implementation in either case; it's just a matter of which
"snapshot" we refer to when deciding whether recently-committed row
versions are visible to our own query. The snapshot is basically a
list of open transactions, which are to be considered not-committed
even if they in fact commit while our query or transaction continues.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Havasvölgyi Ottó | 2005-07-09 22:37:29 | checkpoint segments |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-07-09 15:26:51 | Re: index usage in multi-column ORDER BY |