Re: Static snapshot data

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
Искать
От
Manfred Koizar
Тема
Re: Static snapshot data
Дата
в 08:01:44
Msg-id
v8srcv0dmiaslo6ieeuhqcfdupoqkjoehk@4ax.com
Ответ на
Re: Static snapshot data (Alvaro Herrera)
Список
Дерево обсуждения
Re: Static snapshot data Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Static snapshot data Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg@aon.at>
Re: Static snapshot data Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Static snapshot data Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
On Sat, 17 May 2003 19:14:25 -0400, Alvaro Herrera
 wrote:
>> >The user can
>> >change from READ COMMITTED to SERIALIZABLE when starting a
>> >subtransaction, but not the other way around.
>> 
>> You cannot propose this and agree to my three rules at the same time.
>> Rule 3 says that these two sequences of commands are equivalent:
>> [example]
>
>I see.  Then I don't fully agree with your rules.  Let's say I find that
>the rules are very good guidelines, but they fail WRT the isolation
>level, which is a special exception.

If there is not a compelling reason for making things more
complicated, I vote for implementing the most simple usable solution,
i.e. the whole transaction tree has to run with the same isolation
level.

If SERIALIZABLE subtransactions in a READ COMMITTED transaction are a
useful feature, this enhancement can be added later without breaking
compatibility.

BTW, do we have to invent a new syntax for starting and ending
subtransactions?  COMMIT/ROLLBACK should be no problem.  But does
BEGIN [subtransaction] conflict with BEGIN ... END in pl/pgslq?

ServusManfred

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления
От: Antonis Antoniou
Дата:
От: Alice Lottini
Дата:
FAQ