| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Florian Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
| Cc: | "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Patrick Earl" <patearl(at)patearl(dot)net>, "<pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Select For Update and Left Outer Join |
| Date: | 2011-07-11 19:07:23 |
| Message-ID: | 4E1B039B020000250003F1DD@gw.wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> wrote:
> Yeah MS-SQL really isn't the idea target for comparison here. You
> can override pretty much any lock that MS-SQL takes with a
> stronger or weaker one from what I've seen. I wouldn't be at all
> surprised if you could convince it to work either way by putting
> some (probably rather obscure) incantations into your SQL
> statements.
I was thinking of some of the ALTER DATABASE SET options, like
COMPATIBILITY_LEVEL or ALLOW_SNAPSHOT_ISOLATION, but you have a
point about what overrides can be used at the statement level, too.
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Johnston | 2011-07-11 19:49:33 | Re: [HACKERS] Creating temp tables inside read only transactions |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-07-11 18:54:13 | Re: Select For Update and Left Outer Join |