From: | Vadim Mikheev <vadim(at)krs(dot)ru> |
---|---|
To: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] curso$B#r(Bs in LLL |
Date: | 1998-10-06 02:07:18 |
Message-ID: | 36197B56.3949B470@krs.ru |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
>
> Hi all.
> I'm looking forward to the appearance of LLL in PostgreSQL 6.5 and have a
> question about the sensitivity of cursors in LLL.
>
> In LLL cursors are INSENSITIVE as Oracle ?
>
> Currently cursors are indeterminate and in some cases they are strangely
> sensitive(for me).
Do you mean seeing row inserted between fetches ?
Should this be changed ?
How is this in Oracle, Informix, Sybase, standards ?
> In LLL the behavior of cursors will be more complicated, if changes by other
> transactions can be seen by fetch statements(especially for read committed
> isolation level).
>
> I hope INSENSITIVE cursors to be implemented whose behavior we can predict
> and I think that they can be realized according to proposals for LLL by
> Vadim.
>
> In LLL access methods return snapshot of data as they were in _some_ point
> in time.
> For read committed mode this moment is the time when statement began.
> For serializable mode this is the time when current transaction began.
>
> For a INSENSITIVE cursor this is the time when it was opened(declared),
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is easy to implement.
But I'd like to know what standards say about cursor sensitivness...
> not the time when the fetch statements for it began ?
Thanks.
Vadim
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 1998-10-06 02:23:13 | Re: [HACKERS] RE: [GENERAL] Long update query ? (also Re: [GENERAL] CNF vs. DNF) |
Previous Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 1998-10-06 02:05:56 | Re: [HACKERS] Open 6.4 items |