Re: Repeatable Read Isolation Level "transaction start time"
| От | Ron Johnson |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Repeatable Read Isolation Level "transaction start time" |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CANzqJaBjwtzLg_bZHkokUJbtA8gy6RpHjirfdBH9OJGfn5=tmw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Repeatable Read Isolation Level "transaction start time" (Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Repeatable Read Isolation Level "transaction start time"
|
| Список | pgsql-general |
On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 1:45 PM Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com> wrote:
On 9/25/24 10:22 AM, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 10:28 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
> <mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>> wrote:
>
> It's even looser than that, really: it's the first statement that
> requires an MVCC snapshot.
>
>
> Hm....so why does "SELECT 1;" work as a transaction start marker then,
> as opposed to "SHOW work_mem;", which does not? Do we simply consider
> anything with a SELECT as needing a snapshot?
SELECT some_func();
Where some_func() does something that requires a snapshot.
But why does "SELECT 1;" need a snapshot? Heck, why does "SELECT <immutable>;" need a snapshot?
Death to <Redacted>, and butter sauce.
Don't boil me, I'm still alive.
<Redacted> crustacean!
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: