Florian Pflug wrote:
> On Jan7, 2014, at 20:11 , Kevin Grittner 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/8721aad3-7a3a-4576-b10e-f2cbd1
On Jan7, 2014, at 20:11 , Kevin Grittner 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/8721aad3-7a3a-4576-b10e-f2cbd1e53...@phlo.org
best regards,
Flor
On Jan7, 2014, at 00:38 , Jim Nasby wrote:
> This email and the previous one are an awesome bit of information,
> can we add it to the docs somehow? Even if it's just dumping the
> emails into a wiki page and referencing it?
Most of what I wrote there can be found in README-SSE, I think,
under "A
AK wrote:
> I cannot have a read-only transaction fail because of
> serialization anomalies. Can someone show me a working example
> please?
A common case is a read-only transaction reading a closed batch
without seeing all of its entries.
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/SSI#Read_Only_Transacti
On Jan6, 2014, at 20:41 , AK wrote:
> If two transactions both read and write, I can easily reproduce the
> following: "could not serialize access due to read/write dependencies among
> transactions". However, the 9.3 documentation says that "When relying on
> Serializable transactions to prevent
