Re: Is replacing transactions with CTE a good idea?

CTE's don't change the isolation level. I'm not sure what you are getting
at here ?

Dave Cramer
www.postgres.rocks

On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 at 11:20, Glen Huang <heyhgl(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> Sorry, my mistake. I misunderstood serializable. Are queries in a CTE
> equivalent to those in a repeatable read transaction?
>
> On Apr 1, 2021, at 11:10 PM, Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)postgres(dot)rocks>
> wrote:
>
> 
>
>
> On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 at 11:09, Glen Huang <heyhgl(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> No, but are they equivalent to serializable transactions?
>>
>
> No, they are not.
>
>
>
> Dave Cramer
> www.postgres.rocks
>
>>
>> On Apr 1, 2021, at 11:04 PM, Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)postgres(dot)rocks>
>> wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 at 10:50, Glen Huang <heyhgl(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> From application’s standpoint, it seems using CTE saves a lot work. You
>>> no longer need to parse values out only to pass them back in, and only one
>>> round-trip to the db server.
>>>
>>> If I’m not wrong, CTE is equivalent to serializable transactions? So I
>>> guess the downsize is that quarries can’t be run in parallel?
>>>
>>
>> I do not think a CTE changes the isolation level.
>>
>>>
>>> If I decide to replace all my transaction code with CTE, will I shoot
>>> myself in the foot down the road?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Dave Cramer
>> www.postgres.rocks
>>
>>