Re: determine snapshot after obtaining locks for first statement

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: determine snapshot after obtaining locks for first statement
Date: 2009-12-17 18:13:05
Message-ID: 4765.1261073585@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> What is needed here is a layman's context of what isolation modes are
> good for what type of operation. Neither your explanation or Tom's is
> particularly useful except to say, "Crap, I might be screwed but I don't
> know if I am... how do I find out?"

If we had a simple way to characterize that, we'd not be having this
discussion :-(

One possibility is to try to list the risky cases. So far I can think
of:

* updates using a WHERE clause that tests columns being changed by other
transactions

* updates using subqueries/joins so that the result depends on other rows
besides the one directly updated/deleted, and those other rows are
subject to concurrent changes

But I'm not sure this is a complete list, and an incomplete one might do
more harm than good ...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2009-12-17 18:16:57 Re: determine snapshot after obtaining locks for first statement
Previous Message Kevin Grittner 2009-12-17 18:12:02 Re: determine snapshot after obtaining locks for first statement