I had the impression that since they are chained together, somehow they run “tighter” 😂.
Thanks for pointing out that mistake. > On Apr 1, 2021, at 11:25 PM, Dave Cramer <davecramer@postgres.rocks> wrote: > > > CTE's don't change the isolation level. I'm not sure what you are getting at > here ? > > Dave Cramer > www.postgres.rocks > > >> On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 at 11:20, Glen Huang <hey...@gmail.com> wrote: >> 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
