# Can I achieve linearizable read in the following way?

**URL:** <https://forums.foundationdb.org/t/can-i-achieve-linearizable-read-in-the-following-way/3540>\
**Category:** Using FoundationDB\
**Created:** [September 6, 2022, 11:20am UTC](https://forums.foundationdb.org/t/can-i-achieve-linearizable-read-in-the-following-way/3540 "2022-09-06T11:20:50Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![zk-kiger](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/foundationdb/user_avatar/forums.foundationdb.org/zk-kiger/32/1408_2.png) [@zk-kiger](https://forums.foundationdb.org/u/zk-kiger)\
**Post date:** [September 7, 2022, 2:12am UTC](https://forums.foundationdb.org/t/can-i-achieve-linearizable-read-in-the-following-way/3540/3 "2022-09-07T02:12:55Z")

</div>

I have the same wrong as this topic, I want clients to be able to read the latest value after another client modifies the key instead of stale read.

> [@Questions regarding FDB transaction conflict on two concurrent transactions](https://forums.foundationdb.org/t/questions-regarding-fdb-transaction-conflict-on-two-concurrent-transactions/2913):
>
> I have a question regarding concurrent read and write transactions in FoundationDB in terms of conflict checking. In this example, I have two transactions: a read transaction, T1, performs a scan on a key range, and another write transaction, T2, which changes the keys within this key range, interleaves while the read transaction T1 is pending (not committed yet). I expect FDB to provide linearizability, meaning that after the write transaction T2 commits, the read transaction T1 should be de…

---

_[View the full topic](https://forums.foundationdb.org/t/can-i-achieve-linearizable-read-in-the-following-way/3540)._