| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Lee McKeeman <lmckeeman(at)opushealthcare(dot)com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [BUGS] Status of issue 4593 |
| Date: | 2009-01-13 09:22:04 |
| Message-ID: | 496C5D3C.5020101@gmx.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Well, that's a PostgreSQL-specific point of view, although I
> understand the point of maintaining that guarantee. (In Microsoft SQL
> Server and Sybase ASE we actually had to run our read-only web
> application at the READ UNCOMMITTED transaction isolation level
> because so many SELECT queries were rolled back when they deadlocked
> with the traffic from replication when they were all running at READ
> COMMITTED.)
Per SQL standard, READ UNCOMMITTED mode requires READ ONLY transaction
access mode, so you couldn't do FOR UPDATE there anyway. (Of course,
FOR UPDATE is not in the standard.)
> If you run this at SERIALIZABLE transaction isolation level, would
> PostgreSQL currently roll something back before returning rows in an
> order different than that specified by the ORDER BY clause?
Yes, but using FOR UPDATE is kind of pointless in serializable mode.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Hayen | 2009-01-13 10:06:08 | Re: BUG #4612: lc_numeric setting ignored |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2009-01-13 09:18:57 | Re: [BUGS] Status of issue 4593 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2009-01-13 09:44:12 | Re: Recovery Test Framework |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2009-01-13 09:18:57 | Re: [BUGS] Status of issue 4593 |