Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: User-facing aspects of serializable transactions

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Subject: Re: User-facing aspects of serializable transactions
Date: 2009-05-28 12:29:47
Message-ID: 200905281529.47952.peter_e@gmx.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thursday 28 May 2009 03:38:49 Tom Lane wrote:
> * SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL something-else should provide our
> current snapshot-driven behavior.  I don't have a strong feeling about
> whether "something-else" should be spelled REPEATABLE READ or SNAPSHOT,
> but lean slightly to the latter.

Could someone describe concisely what behavior "snapshot" isolation provides 
that repeatable read does?

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2009-05-28 12:43:25
Subject: Re: User-facing aspects of serializable transactions
Previous:From: Stephen FrostDate: 2009-05-28 12:26:47
Subject: Re: search_path vs extensions

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group