| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Markus Wanner" <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: determine snapshot after obtaining locks for first statement |
| Date: | 2009-12-17 18:18:10 |
| Message-ID: | 4853.1261073890@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> ... The precise
> conditions in which an UPDATE or DELETE can view an inconsistent
> database state (and therefore potentially persist something based on
> that inconsistent state) are that it has a FROM clause and/or
> subqueries which reference data changed by a concurrent database
> transaction which also affects rows which are targets of the UPDATE
> or DELETE.
Are we sure that's a precise and complete description? I don't have
a problem with putting a description just like that in the docs, but
I'm not yet convinced it's right.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2009-12-17 18:20:50 | Re: determine snapshot after obtaining locks for first statement |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2009-12-17 18:16:57 | Re: determine snapshot after obtaining locks for first statement |