| From: | Richard Broersma <richard(dot)broersma(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Edson Richter <richter(at)simkorp(dot)com(dot)br> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Simple question on SELECT |
| Date: | 2011-11-07 23:40:55 |
| Message-ID: | CABvLTWFLUuBgbDaNo48=Uej=K_4P_WF7uFeNCq9KpzgFVShaig@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Edson Richter <richter(at)simkorp(dot)com(dot)br> wrote:
> Thanks for the fast answer. Is there any way to avoid that? I mean, in MS
> SQL Server, I do have "with no_lock" (that produces dirty reads)?
> Or the way to go is the transaction isolation level?
The lowest level of Isolation supported by PostgreSQL is READ
COMMITTED which is the default transaction isolation level:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/interactive/sql-set-transaction.html
--
Regards,
Richard Broersma Jr.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | John R Pierce | 2011-11-07 23:45:26 | Re: Simple question on SELECT |
| Previous Message | Edson Richter | 2011-11-07 23:30:04 | Re: Simple question on SELECT |