Re: Is replacing transactions with CTE a good idea?

On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 at 11:09, Glen Huang <heyhgl(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> No, but are they equivalent to serializable transactions?
>

No, they are not.

Dave Cramer
www.postgres.rocks

>
> On Apr 1, 2021, at 11:04 PM, Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)postgres(dot)rocks>
> wrote:
>
> 
>
>
>
> On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 at 10:50, Glen Huang <heyhgl(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> From application’s standpoint, it seems using CTE saves a lot work. You
>> no longer need to parse values out only to pass them back in, and only one
>> round-trip to the db server.
>>
>> If I’m not wrong, CTE is equivalent to serializable transactions? So I
>> guess the downsize is that quarries can’t be run in parallel?
>>
>
> I do not think a CTE changes the isolation level.
>
>>
>> If I decide to replace all my transaction code with CTE, will I shoot
>> myself in the foot down the road?
>>
>
>
> Dave Cramer
> www.postgres.rocks
>
>