Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't think that's any clearer, though it is more disparaging. > :-) It's certainly not my goal to knock PostgreSQL. The precise conditions in which an UPDATE or DELETE can view an inconsistent database state (and therefore potentially persist something based on that inconsistent state) are that it has a FROM clause and/or subqueries which reference data changed by a concurrent database transaction which also affects rows which are targets of the UPDATE or DELETE. Precise descriptions of problem circumstances seem more useful to developers than vague statements like "it's usually good enough, except when it isn't." If an accurate description of the behavior is considered disparaging, perhaps it's the behavior which should change, not just the description of it. Since I never use READ COMMITTED for updates, I'm not going to weigh in on whether this is a big enough problem to merit the effort and overhead of a different implementation; I'm just suggesting we should put the information out there more explicitly. My wording was still a little on the vague side, in an attempt to keep it short; perhaps that was a mistake. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
