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 >> >>
