Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> +1 for adding parens; we might want to make a function of it
Makes sense; will do.
> I don't much like the "XactUses..." aspect of it; that's just
> about meaningless, because almost everything in PG could be said
> to be "used" by a transaction. How about
> IsolationUsesXactSnapshot (versus IsolationUsesStmtSnapshot)?
And IsolationIsSerializable to make that test symmetrical?
Any objections to this plan?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-09-02 20:13:38|
|Subject: Re: Interruptible sleeps (was Re: CommitFest 2009-07: Yay, Kevin! Thanks, reviewers!) |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-09-02 19:07:40|
|Subject: Re: "serializable" in comments and names |