Re: Strange Behavior with Serializable Transcations

From: "Qingqing Zhou" <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Strange Behavior with Serializable Transcations
Date: 2006-06-30 02:11:31
Message-ID: e82190$1jpk$1@news.hub.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general


"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote
>
> Right, the snapshot does not become set until you do a non-utility
> command (normally, SELECT/INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE). This is a feature, not
> a bug, because it lets the transaction take table locks before its
> snapshot becomes set.
>

Hm, mostly I understand it as an optimization. What do you mean by "it lets
the transaction take table locks before its snapshot becomes set"? If we
take a snapshot at BEGIN, then the transaction can't take table locks?

test=# begin;select count(*) from k;
BEGIN
count
-------
9999
(1 row)

test=# lock table k;
LOCK TABLE

Regards,
Qingqing

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-06-30 02:27:02 Re: Strange Behavior with Serializable Transcations
Previous Message Tim Hart 2006-06-29 21:58:23 Re: User privileges in web database applications