Re: Progress of asynchronous queries

[Adriaan van Os <adriaan(at)microbizz(dot)nl>]

Jeroen T. Vermeulen wrote:
> On Sun, September 17, 2006 17:22, Adriaan van Os wrote:
>
> > > But you'd be doing this in a transaction anyway: you can't declare a
> > > cursor without starting a transaction first.Yes, you could deliberately
> > > declare "WITH HOLD" and keep using your cursor after commiting or
> > > aborting
> > > the transaction.  But even then, so far as I know, the cursor presents a
> > > snapshot view of its result set so you get an effective isolation level
> > > of
> > > "serializable" even then.
> > No, carefully read
> > <http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/static/transaction-iso.html>.
>
> I'm familiar with the document, thank you, but if you're not prepared to
> give any detail beyond "no" then I remain unconvinced.  What part exactly
> do you disagree with?  That cursors can't be declared without beginning a
> transaction first?  That cursors present a snapshot view of their result
> set?  That that amounts to an effective isolation level of "serializable?"

I now read that Postgres only supports FOR READ ONLY cursors. So, yes, for those cursors you are 
right and my remark doesn't apply.

Still, the issue I raised was about tracing the progress of a SQL command in general, not about the 
specific case of using a cursor instead.

Regards,

Adriaan van Os