Re: Serializable implementation
| От | Robert Haas |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Serializable implementation |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 603c8f071001071802j7e4479fch30867f4a6a7e17ea@mail.gmail.com обсуждение |
| Ответ на | Re: Serializable implementation (Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Serializable implementation
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
>> I'm torn between thinking it would be good to spell it that way and
>> thinking that we should have "serializable_isolation_implementation"
>> GUC (or something to that effect) which maps to an enumeration
>> containing "snapshot" and "ssi". Opinions welcome, since I've put
>> that GUC at the top of my implementation list. :-)
Hmm. Why would we use a GUC for this instead of an additional option
to BEGIN TRANSACTION?
I would think:
BEGIN TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL {READ COMMITTED | SNAPSHOT | SERIALIZABLE}
With our current levels being the first two of those.
Or is that a bad idea?
...Robert
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: