Tom Lane wrote:
> Mladen Gogala <mladen(dot)gogala(at)vmsinfo(dot)com> writes:
>> Where is the problem? The problem lies in the fact that the 2nd
>> transaction should have only seen the changes committed before it has
>> begun, ie, x=1.
> You might want to go reread this:
> If you don't like that behavior, you might want SERIALIZABLE mode
> regards, tom lane
No, it wasn't about liking or not liking, I was only trying to get to
the bottom of this behavior. In particular, I translated the phrase "
The search condition of the command (the WHERE clause) is re-evaluated "
as the transaction restart and have fully expected the triggers to fire
twice, which didn't happen. I am comparing Postgres to Oracle, to find
out where should I expect different behavior and where should I expect
exactly the same behavior. So far, I must say, the changes aren't too
big. One of the biggest is the lack of the %ROWCOUNT attribute with
cursors and a different set of exceptions. Also, there is no
DBMS_OUTPUT, I have to use RAISE NOTICE, which feels strange but does
the trick. As a DBA, I should be able to help developers when they do
run into problems. And they will.
Sr. Oracle DBA
New York, NY 10036
The Leader in Integrated Media Intelligence Solutions
In response to
pgsql-novice by date
|Next:||From: Richard Broersma||Date: 2010-10-12 21:07:25|
|Subject: Re: Concurrency|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-10-12 20:42:50|
|Subject: Re: Concurrency |