Re: Serialization questions

From: Richard Guo <riguo(at)pivotal(dot)io>
To: Alex <zhihui(dot)fan1213(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Serialization questions
Date: 2019-08-21 02:41:01
Message-ID: CAN_9JTw7YiFSMq_xD1bZpa=fFvKP_avzavpt0J5ondUhVq6cCQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 9:30 AM Alex <zhihui(dot)fan1213(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

>
> first issue "set default_transaction_isolation to 'serializable';" on the
> both sessions, then run:
>
> Session 1: begin; select * from t; (2 rows selected);
> Session 2: delete from t; (committed automatically)
> Session 1: commit; (commit successfully).
>
> looks the reads in session 1 has no impact on the session 2 at all which
> is conflicted with the document
>

This behavior makes sense to me. The effect can be considered as we
execute the two sessions in a serial order of first session 1 and then
session 2.

Thanks
Richard

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2019-08-21 02:56:35 Re: POC: Cleaning up orphaned files using undo logs
Previous Message Jeff Davis 2019-08-21 02:09:25 Re: Add "password_protocol" connection parameter to libpq