Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Transactions and Concurrency in PostgreSQL

doadm-notes.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–17 of 17 posts

Re: Transactions and Concurrency in PostgreSQL

#11

Post by edgyquant »

ivanleoncz wrote: post #8
vore wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Security"? This has nothing to do with security. Also, it's not great to pollute technical forums with more ChatGPT-generated content when it would be more useful for domain experts to contribute their own knowledge.

I don't get your comment, to be quite honest. Besides, I don't like 3rd party A.I. services: the content that you see, is the content that I wrote. And this comment of yours seems more of something to offend than to contribute. I feel bad for you.

Because people wanting answers can go ask ChatGPT themselves. It helps no one to post its answers here and is a cheap way of trying to karma whore.

That aside, it’s blatantly against the rules here. Go somewhere else if you want botspam

Re: Transactions and Concurrency in PostgreSQL

#12

Post by ivanleoncz »

ulrikrasmussen wrote: post #5
revskill wrote: post #2

[flagged]

This is not a very good analogy I think. Serializable reads like a table or database level lock, but that is not at all what it is.

Would you mind to explain your point, please? I'd be glad to learn more about it, for so far, I cannot agree with your comment, based on hands-on testing and documentations. Thanks.

Re: Transactions and Concurrency in PostgreSQL

#13

Post by ivanleoncz »

edgyquant wrote: post #11
ivanleoncz wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get your comment, to be quite honest. Besides, I don't like 3rd party A.I. services: the content that you see, is the content that I wrote. And this comment of yours seems more of something to offend than to contribute. I feel bad for you.

Because people wanting answers can go ask ChatGPT themselves. It helps no one to post its answers here and is a cheap way of trying to karma whore. That aside, it’s blatantly against the rules here. Go somewhere else if you want botspam

Karma Whore? That's how you speak with people trying to share contents here? Does that does in favor of the rules then? Buddy, I feel bad for you. I hope you may have someone to love you on this Sunday, for you really need it. Don't be like that. Have a good day.

Re: Transactions and Concurrency in PostgreSQL

#14

Post by ivanleoncz »

edgyquant wrote: post #11
ivanleoncz wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get your comment, to be quite honest. Besides, I don't like 3rd party A.I. services: the content that you see, is the content that I wrote. And this comment of yours seems more of something to offend than to contribute. I feel bad for you.

Because people wanting answers can go ask ChatGPT themselves. It helps no one to post its answers here and is a cheap way of trying to karma whore. That aside, it’s blatantly against the rules here. Go somewhere else if you want botspam

You're not contributing with the quality of this space, by sharing such comment, and using the "whore" word here.

Re: Transactions and Concurrency in PostgreSQL

#15

Post by kjeetgill »

ivanleoncz wrote: post #8
vore wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Security"? This has nothing to do with security. Also, it's not great to pollute technical forums with more ChatGPT-generated content when it would be more useful for domain experts to contribute their own knowledge.

I don't get your comment, to be quite honest. Besides, I don't like 3rd party A.I. services: the content that you see, is the content that I wrote. And this comment of yours seems more of something to offend than to contribute. I feel bad for you.

Vore's comment was critical of revskill's comment that was just ChatGPT output — not your article.

Maybe you can't see dead comments?

Re: Transactions and Concurrency in PostgreSQL

#16

Post by peheje »

I do believe that a developer's grasp of database concepts, like handling concurrency issues and understanding isolation levels, even if not by specific terminology, can be an indicator of their depth in problem-solving, attention to detail, and experience with complex systems.

Re: Transactions and Concurrency in PostgreSQL

#17

Post by vore »

ivanleoncz wrote: post #8
vore wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Security"? This has nothing to do with security. Also, it's not great to pollute technical forums with more ChatGPT-generated content when it would be more useful for domain experts to contribute their own knowledge.

I don't get your comment, to be quite honest. Besides, I don't like 3rd party A.I. services: the content that you see, is the content that I wrote. And this comment of yours seems more of something to offend than to contribute. I feel bad for you.

It seems you can’t see the comment I’m replying to because it’s been flagged and hidden if your settings are set that way – I am not talking about your article, I have no problem with it!
Post reply on HN