From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: determine snapshot after obtaining locks for first statement |
Date: | 2009-12-17 17:58:30 |
Message-ID: | 603c8f070912170958s619ad3cey332b0a4f254138cd@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 12:51 PM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
>> I'm not very sure what a clearer explanation would look like
>
> As a stab at it, how about?:
>
> This behavior makes Read Committed mode unsuitable for many UPDATE
> or DELETE commands with joins or subqueries
I don't think that's any clearer, though it is more disparaging. :-)
Note we also say: "The partial transaction isolation provided by Read
Committed mode is adequate for many applications, and this mode is
fast and simple to use; however, it is not sufficient for all cases.
Applications that do complex queries and updates might require a more
rigorously consistent view of the database than Read Committed mode
provides."
...Robert
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2009-12-17 18:04:53 | Re: determine snapshot after obtaining locks for first statement |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-12-17 17:58:25 | Re: determine snapshot after obtaining locks for first statement |