Re: Compatibility GUC for serializable

> If we must have a GUC, perhaps we could publish a sunset one release in
> the future.

I was thinking default to false/off in 9.1, and disappear in 9.3.

> Really, the biggest risk of such a GUC is the confusion factor when
> supporting people.  If we're told that the transactions involved in
> some scenario were all run at the SERIALIZABLE isolation level, we
> would need to wonder how many *really* were, and how many were (as
> David put it) at the NOTREALLYSERIALIZABLEBUTLABELEDASSERIALIZABLE
> isolation level?

How is this different from our other backwards-compatibility GUCs?

--                                  -- Josh Berkus                                    PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
                        http://www.pgexperts.com