From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: postgresql transactons not fully isolated |
Date: | 2017-06-20 19:58:22 |
Message-ID: | CAHyXU0yEehjmNw99CRNjxw9i6uE0vzmM=MBnbvJhTJzsds2ONQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 2:34 PM, David G. Johnston
<david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net> wrote:
>> I get the reported result (DELETE 0 and a table containing 2 and 3)
>> in both 'read committed' and 'read uncommitted'.
>
> Practically speaking those are a single transaction isolation mode.
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/static/transaction-iso.html
>
> I think Merlin has mis-read the article he linked to. The example
> being used there never claims to be done under serialization and seems
> to describe an example of the perils of relying on the default
> isolation level.
oops -- could be operator error :-)
merlin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2017-06-20 20:01:35 | Re: Optional message to user when terminating/cancelling backend |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-06-20 19:51:28 | Re: Something is rotten in publication drop |