Re: Stupid question on Read Committed Isolation Level

From: "Jeroen T(dot) Vermeulen" <jtv(at)xs4all(dot)nl>
To: "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Stupid question on Read Committed Isolation Level
Date: 2004-01-29 18:34:57
Message-ID: 20040129183457.GH43961@xs4all.nl
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

Jeroen

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Marc G. Fournier 2004-01-29 19:27:06 Re: Stupid question on Read Committed Isolation Level
Previous Message Tom Lane 2004-01-29 18:21:34 Re: Stupid question on Read Committed Isolation Level