On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Jeroen T. Vermeulen wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 02:07:25PM -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > "If two such transactions concurrently try to change the balance of
> > account 12345, we clearly want the second transaction to start from the
> > updated version of the account's row"
> > To me, I read this as the first transaction has not yet committed, but the
> > second sees its changes ... so if second commitst, and first hasn't yet,
> > second commits with seconds changes + firsts changes, but what if first
> > aborts?
> There's the rub--it doesn't say the part about "has not yet committed,"
> although I can see how you could read it that way.
I would say that "two such transactions concurrently" heavily implies
such, no? :)
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Marc G. Fournier||Date: 2004-01-29 19:56:28|
|Subject: Re: postgresql.org reverse lookup fail|
|Previous:||From: Jeroen T. Vermeulen||Date: 2004-01-29 18:34:57|
|Subject: Re: Stupid question on Read Committed Isolation Level|