From: | Kirk Parker <khp(at)equatoria(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Behavior of ON DELETE CASCADE in CTEs |
Date: | 2024-09-05 02:46:35 |
Message-ID: | CANwZ8rmVM4GzJFGW866TR34qtaKmQqFRnHdzN3E02bG2ta89kw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs |
> The sub-statements in WITH are executed concurrently
That much I did get from the docs. Given each sub-statement is qualified
by the RETURNING results of the previous one, that should at least
guarantee the completeness of each query regardless of the order in which
individual rows are affected.
Thanks, this has been helpful -- as I reread the page you pointed to, this
jumped out at me:
> All the statements are executed with the same *snapshot* (see
Chapter 13 <https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/mvcc.html>), so they
cannot “see” one another's effects on the target tables.
That I think specifically covers my question, and Tom Lane's note about
end-of-statement was also helpful.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alain Bourgeois | 2024-09-05 09:24:50 | RE: pg_upgrade -c cannot be run if old cluster is running |
Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2024-09-05 01:40:31 | Re: Behavior of ON DELETE CASCADE in CTEs |