Re: postgresql transactons not fully isolated

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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