Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 15:34 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> (C) One or more GUCs will be added to control whether the new
>> behavior is used when serializable transaction isolation is
>> requested or whether, for compatibility with older PostgreSQL
>> releases, the transaction actually runs with snapshot isolation.
>> In any event, a request for repeatable read mode will provide the
>> existing snapshot isolation mode.
> I'm not sure a GUC is the best way here, are you talking about as a
> migration path, or something that would exist forever?
I've gotten the distinct impression that some would prefer to continue
to use their existing techniques under snapshot isolation. I was sort
of assuming that they would want a GUC to default to legacy behavior
with a new setting for standard compliant behavior.
Another alternative here would be to just change a request for a
serializable transation to give you a serializable transaction, and
document that the existing snapshot isolation is now available only by
requesting repeatable read mode. Right now you get snapshot isolation
mode on a request for either repeatable read mode or serializable
I think that many people only use read committed; they would not be
impacted at all.
What do you think would be best here?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Josh Berkus||Date: 2009-05-27 23:57:00|
|Subject: Re: search_path vs extensions|
|Previous:||From: Jeff Davis||Date: 2009-05-27 23:53:10|
|Subject: Re: User-facing aspects of serializable transactions|