On 04/26/2012 04:38 PM, Jos Groot Lipman wrote:
> As far as I understand this means: you will not see changes made by other
> connections (committed or uncommited) after your transaction started.
> If another connections commits a change, you will not see it.
> I would expect: If another connections rollbacks the change, you will not
> see it either.
> Why whould anyone want an aborted read-transaction in this case?
I would agree ... I'd like to hear the other side of the story here
so we understand why this change was made if it was indeed intentional.
What purpose does this behavior serve? Not saying it is wrong at
this point, just lacking information.
Also would need to understand the scope of this behavior. Does
that mean if any connection rolls back that immediately all other
connections abort? Or is it only one very specific case that this