From: | "Albe Laurenz" <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | "Kevin Grittner *EXTERN*" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, "Shigeru Hanada *EXTERN*" <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Hitoshi Harada" <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Kohei KaiGai" <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, "Etsuro Fujita" <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Martijn van Oosterhout" <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server |
Date: | 2012-02-20 15:51:17 |
Message-ID: | D960CB61B694CF459DCFB4B0128514C2077EC991@exadv11.host.magwien.gv.at |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Kevin Grittner wrote:
> > If your query involves foreign scans on two foreign tables on the
> > same foreign server, these should always see the same snapshot,
> > because that's how it works with two scans in one query on local
> > tables.
>
> That makes sense.
> > So I think it should be REPEATABLE READ in all cases -
> > SERIALIZABLE is not necessary as long as all you do is read.
>
> That depends on whether you only want to see states of the database
> which are consistent with later states of the database and any
> invariants enforced by triggers or other software. See this example
> of how a read-only transaction can see a bogus state at REPEATABLE
> READ or less strict transaction isolation:
>
> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/SSI#Read_Only_Transactions
>
> Perhaps if the transaction using the pgsql_fdw is running at the
> SERIALIZABLE transaction isolation level, it should run the queries
> at the that level, otherwise at REPEATABLE READ.
I read the example carefully, and it seems to me that it is necessary
for the read-only transaction (T3) to be SERIALIZABLE so that
T1 is aborted and the state that T3 saw remains valid.
If I understand right, I agree with your correction.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2012-02-20 15:58:23 | Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-02-20 15:37:45 | Re: REASSIGN OWNED lacks support for FDWs |