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@postgres.rocks> wrote: > > > > >> On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 at 11:09, Glen Huang <hey...@gmail.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@postgres.rocks> wrote: >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 at 10:50, Glen Huang <hey...@gmail.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
