Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Progress of asynchronous queries

From: Adriaan van Os <postgres(at)microbizz(dot)nl>
To: pgsql-interfaces(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Progress of asynchronous queries
Date: 2006-09-17 10:22:33
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-interfaces
Jeroen T. Vermeulen wrote:
> Adriaan van Os wrote:
>> Besides, when more than one user is connected, multiple SQL commands may
>> behave different than a
>> single SQL command
>> (<>)
> But you'd be doing this in a transaction anyway: you can't declare a
> cursor without starting a transaction first.Yes, you could deliberately
> declare "WITH HOLD" and keep using your cursor after commiting or aborting
> the transaction.  But even then, so far as I know, the cursor presents a
> snapshot view of its result set so you get an effective isolation level of
> "serializable" even then.

No, carefully read <>.

> The number of users has nothing to do with the matter

It does.

> if that were a real
> concern, you'd be using a serializable transaction anyway, so you wouldn't
> have to worry about it even if cursors did behave as "read committed."

I don't want to be forced to use serializable transaction mode, just because I want to know the 
progress of an SQL command.


Adriaan van Os

In response to


pgsql-interfaces by date

Next:From: Jeroen T. VermeulenDate: 2006-09-17 11:03:16
Subject: Re: Progress of asynchronous queries
Previous:From: Jeroen T. VermeulenDate: 2006-09-16 08:57:38
Subject: Re: Progress of asynchronous queries

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group