On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 02:05:41 -0800, bgolda <e9syuk002@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hello, this is my first post, please don't shoot... > > I was just experimenting with transactions (PG 8.1), and there is > something which puzzles me. If i write 'SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL > SERIALIZABLE;' in my function, it breaks. Error informs me, that it was > executed after some query, while it is a first command in the function > after declares and begin! Because there is already a transaction which the function is executing in and for which a query has been started (e.g. the one that calls the function). > However, it seems to work perfectly well if I change in the same place > the system variable, responsible for the transaction level. I used > set_config, if I remember well. The function is only for a DBA task, so > it seems to be all right to use set_config, isn't it? > > And my questions are: > 1) Why in the first case it is not possible? Is it an error or am I > just doing something wrong? Should have set something before? > 2) Are there any downsides of the mentioned solution (changing > transaction_isolation value), except of the fact that it is an > administration command and should not be used :)? > > Thanks, > > _-_-_-_ > Bart Golda > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
