From: | "Jeroen T(dot) Vermeulen" <jtv(at)xs4all(dot)nl> |
---|---|
To: | "Adriaan van Os" <postgres(at)microbizz(dot)nl> |
Cc: | pgsql-interfaces(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Progress of asynchronous queries |
Date: | 2006-09-16 08:57:38 |
Message-ID: | 6009.125.24.242.104.1158397058.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-interfaces |
On Fri, September 15, 2006 19:56, Adriaan van Os wrote:
> Besides, when more than one user is connected, multiple SQL commands may
> behave different than a
> single SQL command
> (<http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/static/transaction-iso.html>)
But you'd be doing this in a transaction anyway: you can't declare a
cursor without starting a transaction first. Yes, you could deliberately
declare "WITH HOLD" and keep using your cursor after commiting or aborting
the transaction. But even then, so far as I know, the cursor presents a
snapshot view of its result set so you get an effective isolation level of
"serializable" even then.
The number of users has nothing to do with the matter--if that were a real
concern, you'd be using a serializable transaction anyway, so you wouldn't
have to worry about it even if cursors did behave as "read committed."
Jeroen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Adriaan van Os | 2006-09-17 10:22:33 | Re: Progress of asynchronous queries |
Previous Message | D'Arcy J.M. Cain | 2006-09-15 18:51:40 | Re: Python interfaces |