Florian Pflug <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jan7, 2014, at 20:11 , Kevin Grittner <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Yeah, neither of the provided examples rolled back the read only >> transaction itself; > > Actually, the fixed version [1] of my example does. > > [1] > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/[email protected] Due to my lame email provider, that post didn't show for me until I had already replied. :-( You had already showed an example almost exactly like what I described in my post. I tweaked it a bit more for the Wiki page to show more clearly why SSI has to care about what the writing transaction reads. For all the database engine knows, what was read contributed to whether the application allowed it to successfully commit. By using the value from the SELECT in the UPDATE it is easier to see why it matters, although it needs to be considered either way. In other words, we seem to be in full agreement, just using different language to describe it. :-) -- Kevin Grittner EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
