Kevin Grittner wrote: > > If your query involves foreign scans on two foreign tables on the > > same foreign server, these should always see the same snapshot, > > because that's how it works with two scans in one query on local > > tables. > > That makes sense.
> > So I think it should be REPEATABLE READ in all cases - > > SERIALIZABLE is not necessary as long as all you do is read. > > That depends on whether you only want to see states of the database > which are consistent with later states of the database and any > invariants enforced by triggers or other software. See this example > of how a read-only transaction can see a bogus state at REPEATABLE > READ or less strict transaction isolation: > > http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/SSI#Read_Only_Transactions > > Perhaps if the transaction using the pgsql_fdw is running at the > SERIALIZABLE transaction isolation level, it should run the queries > at the that level, otherwise at REPEATABLE READ. I read the example carefully, and it seems to me that it is necessary for the read-only transaction (T3) to be SERIALIZABLE so that T1 is aborted and the state that T3 saw remains valid. If I understand right, I agree with your correction. Yours, Laurenz Albe -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
