Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] Big IN() clauses etc : feature proposal

From: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>
To: PFC <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com>
Cc: Christian Kratzer <ck(at)cksoft(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Big IN() clauses etc : feature proposal
Date: 2006-05-10 18:40:35
Message-ID: 20060510184035.GN99570@pervasive.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-performance
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 11:33:42AM +0200, PFC wrote:
> 	- Repeating the query might yield different results if records were 
> 	added  or deleted in the meantime.

BTW, SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL serializeable or BEGIN ISOLATION
LEVEL serializeable would cure that.
-- 
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant      jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software      http://pervasive.com    work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf       cell: 512-569-9461

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Jim C. NasbyDate: 2006-05-10 19:00:11
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Big IN() clauses etc : feature proposal
Previous:From: Bruno Wolff IIIDate: 2006-05-10 18:10:51
Subject: Re: UNSUBSCRIBE

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Zdenek KotalaDate: 2006-05-10 18:46:41
Subject: [TODO] Allow commenting of variables ...
Previous:From: Mark WongDate: 2006-05-10 16:55:13
Subject: Re: XLOG_BLCKSZ vs. wal_buffers table

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group