Re: determine snapshot after obtaining locks for first statement
| От | Greg Stark |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: determine snapshot after obtaining locks for first statement |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 407d949e0912170949n5f16d13are2f8f8c1eddf4b8b@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: determine snapshot after obtaining locks for first statement (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: determine snapshot after obtaining locks for first statement
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Well, it would all depend on what you're trying to do. Typical > single-row UPDATE commands aren't really affected by this problem, > and in fact the behavior is pretty much exactly what they want as > long as the WHERE conditions don't involve columns that are being > changed. > > Maybe we should replace the bit about "complex search conditions" > with something about referencing multiple rows to perform one update. > I'm not very sure what a clearer explanation would look like though. I wonder if RETURNING hasn't created a whole new set of cases where our READ COMMITTED behaviour is bogus. I guess it's equivalent to having used SELECT FOR UPDATE. -- greg
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: