| From: | Eudald Valcàrcel Lacasa <eudald(dot)valcarcel(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Queries getting older values (autocommit enabled) |
| Date: | 2020-04-24 16:30:14 |
| Message-ID: | CANEx+AVS4a7PYUV3ERfcfipqY_=Yz6y3tP1U0RE6n4Pe=eQS3w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Hello!
Thanks David and Tom for your answer.
I'll check out mvcc. Would user defined locks on a specific table make
PostgreSql underperform too much?
Thanks again,
Eudald
El vie., 24 abr. 2020 a las 18:15, Tom Lane (<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>) escribió:
> =?UTF-8?Q?Eudald_Valc=C3=A0rcel_Lacasa?= <eudald(dot)valcarcel(at)gmail(dot)com>
> writes:
> > Could it be possible that, somehow, the select query starts before the
> > update one, although it's printed as if it's being executed after it?
>
> It's certainly possible that the select is using a snapshot that was
> taken before the update commits. You should read this chapter of
> the manual for background and some hints:
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/mvcc.html
>
> regards, tom lane
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | cbw | 2020-04-24 16:35:39 | Re: Backend stuck in tirigger.c:afterTriggerInvokeEvents forever |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-04-24 16:15:28 | Re: Queries getting older values (autocommit enabled) |