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

Re: Concurrency

From: Mladen Gogala <mladen(dot)gogala(at)vmsinfo(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Concurrency
Date: 2010-10-12 20:59:37
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-novice
Tom Lane wrote:
> Mladen Gogala <mladen(dot)gogala(at)vmsinfo(dot)com> writes:
>> Where is the problem? The problem lies in the fact that the 2nd 
>> transaction should have only seen the changes committed before it has 
>> begun, ie, x=1.
> You might want to go reread this:
> If you don't like that behavior, you might want SERIALIZABLE mode
> instead.
> 			regards, tom lane
No, it wasn't about liking or not liking, I was only trying to get to 
the bottom of this behavior. In particular, I translated the phrase " 
The search condition of the command (the WHERE clause) is re-evaluated " 
as the transaction restart and have fully expected the triggers to fire 
twice, which didn't happen.  I am comparing Postgres to Oracle, to find 
out where should I expect different behavior and where should I expect 
exactly the same behavior. So far, I must say, the changes aren't too 
big. One of the biggest is the lack of the %ROWCOUNT attribute with 
cursors and a different set of exceptions. Also, there is no 
DBMS_OUTPUT, I have to use RAISE NOTICE, which feels strange but does 
the trick. As a DBA, I should be able to help developers when they do 
run into problems. And they will.

Mladen Gogala 
Sr. Oracle DBA
1500 Broadway
New York, NY 10036
(212) 329-5251 
The Leader in Integrated Media Intelligence Solutions

In response to


pgsql-novice by date

Next:From: Richard BroersmaDate: 2010-10-12 21:07:25
Subject: Re: Concurrency
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-10-12 20:42:50
Subject: Re: Concurrency

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