From: | Jeremy Finzel <finzelj(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Repeatable Read Isolation in SQL running via background worker |
Date: | 2018-08-16 17:53:26 |
Message-ID: | CAMa1XUhZ-YT_E+_ipP1ty-bADc62VLJFAagkL2hdv0cyGegzWQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 11:18 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 10:52 AM, Jeremy Finzel <finzelj(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 4:34 PM, Jeremy Finzel <finzelj(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >> I am using worker_spi as a model to run a SQL statement inside a
> >> background worker. From my browsing of the Postgres library, I believe
> that
> >> if I want repeatable read isolation level, the proper way for me to
> attain
> >> this is to add this line after StartTransactionCommand() in
> worker_spi_main:
> >>
> >> XactIsoLevel = XACT_REPEATABLE_READ;
>
> It's usually a good idea to only change GUCs through the GUC machinery
> i.e. use SetConfigOption().
>
> Are you using StartTransactionCommand() and CommitTransactionCommand()
> to manage transaction boundaries? If not, maybe you should.
>
Many thanks for the reply. Yes, I am using StartTransactionCommand and
Commit just like in worker_spi.c. Here is the relevant section of code:
SetCurrentStatementStartTimestamp();
StartTransactionCommand();
XactIsoLevel = XACT_REPEATABLE_READ;
SPI_connect();
PushActiveSnapshot(GetTransactionSnapshot());
pgstat_report_activity(STATE_RUNNING, buf.data);
/* We can now execute queries via SPI */
SPI_execute(buf.data, false, 0);
/*
* And finish our transaction.
*/
SPI_finish();
PopActiveSnapshot();
CommitTransactionCommand();
So if you are saying it would be better to use SetConfigOption() there I
will look into that. Thanks!
Jeremy
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Shawn Debnath | 2018-08-16 17:53:38 | Re: A slightly misleading comment in GetNewObjectId() |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-08-16 17:26:46 | Re: Memory leak with CALL to Procedure with COMMIT. |