On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Brad House <brad@...> wrote:
> 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
Only the connection that does the rollback has its queries aborted.
If you are seeing other connections get queries aborted, that is something
new that I have not seen before and will need to investigate.
If you do a ROLLBACK in the middle of a query, why would you ever want to
keep going with that query? What would you expect to see?