From: | Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: READ UNCOMMITTED in postgres |
Date: | 2019-12-19 06:54:47 |
Message-ID: | 7d37e627-9717-6acf-9ad5-f357d5d0f147@gmx.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Matthew Phillips schrieb am 19.12.2019 um 00:12:
> Hi, With the current READ UNCOMMITTED discussion happening on
> pgsql-hackers [1], It did raise a question/use-case I recently
> encountered and could not find a satisfactory solution for. If
> someone is attempting to poll for new records on a high insert volume
> table that has a monotonically increasing id, what is the best way to
> do it? As is, with a nave implementation, rows are not guaranteed to
> appear in monotonic order; so if you were to keep a $MAX_ID, and
> SELECT WHERE p_id > $MAX_ID, you would hit gaps. Is there a clean way
> to do this? I've seen READ UNCOMMITTED used for this with DB2.
In my understanding READ UNCOMMITTED in other databases is typically used to avoid read-locks which Postgres doesn't have.
So I wonder what benefits READ UNCOMMITTED would have to begin with.
But, if you want to poll for new rows, then why don't you use a timestamp column?
select *
from the_table
where created_at >= <last check time>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2019-12-19 08:19:46 | Re: READ UNCOMMITTED in postgres |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-12-19 00:06:27 | Re: AccessExclusiveLock with pg_locks.locktype of tuple |