On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Oleksii Kliukin <
alexk@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Could it be a consequence of how REPEATABLE READ transactions handle
snapshots? With REPEATABLE READ the snapshot is acquired only once at the
beginning of a transaction; a READ COMMITTED transaction re-evaluates its
snapshot with each new command.
I bet that's exactly it.
I still don’t fully understand why is it so (the problem occurs while running only one SELECT-statement in READ COMMITED so only one snapshot is taken), but if is expected behavior shouldn’t the documentation mention that using READ COMMITED (which is the default) you may still get conflicts with recovery while using replication slots?
