From: | Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: synchronized snapshots |
Date: | 2011-09-28 12:25:09 |
Message-ID: | CACw0+12Fh11NnUpa+S3mLPcNOiJtQMUY2_H=RHVDMoN7AYPJ+A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Marko,
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 2:29 AM, Marko Tiikkaja
<marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> In a sequence such as this:
>
> BEGIN TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL SERIALIZABLE;
> INSERT INTO foo VALUES (-1);
> SELECT pg_export_snapshot();
>
> the row added to "foo" is not visible in the exported snapshot. If that's
> the desired behaviour, I think it should be mentioned in the documentation.
Yes, that's the desired behaviour, the patch add this paragraph to the
documentation already:
"Also note that even after the synchronization both clients still run
their own independent transactions. As a consequence, even though
synchronized with respect to reading pre-existing data, both
transactions won't be able to see each other's uncommitted data."
I'll take a look at the other issues and update the patch either
tonight or tomorrow.
Thank you,
Joachim
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jamie Fox | 2011-09-28 12:39:49 | Re: Mismatch of relation names: pg_toast.pg_toast_nnn during pg_upgrade from 8.4 to 9.1 |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2011-09-28 12:21:54 | Re: fix for pg_upgrade |