From: | "Albe Laurenz" <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | "Nico Sabbi *EXTERN*" <nsabbi(at)officinedigitali(dot)it>, <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Inconsistence in transaction isolation docs |
Date: | 2007-10-16 14:33:43 |
Message-ID: | D960CB61B694CF459DCFB4B0128514C25DCF2D@exadv11.host.magwien.gv.at |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Nico Sabbi wrote:
> /From:
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.2/interactive/transaction-iso.html
>
> "
> Read Committed/ [...]
>
> to me the above sentence sounds inconsistent: it's
> asserting that both 1) and 2) apply:
>
> 1) it never sees ... changes committed during query
> execution by concurrent transactions
>
> 2) Notice that two successive SELECT commands can see
> different data, even though they are within a single
> transaction, if other transactions commit changes
> during execution of the first SELECT
>
> Can anyone explain, please?
1) means: as long as the first SELECT runs ("during
query execution"), you won't see changes made by
another transaction.
2) means: when you run a second SELECT, that SELECT
will see changes made by other transactions, even if
both SELECTs are in one (read commited) transaction.
That doesn't sound contradictory to me.
There is a difference between "during query execution"
and "within a single transaction", maybe that is where
your problem comes from.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ron Peterson | 2007-10-16 14:43:40 | RSA PKCS #1 v2.1 functions for PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-10-16 14:21:17 | Re: can I define own variables? |