Re: Serializable implementation

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
Cc: Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Serializable implementation
Date: 2010-01-08 02:02:52
Message-ID: 603c8f071001071802j7e4479fch30867f4a6a7e17ea@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: 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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Fetter 2010-01-08 02:09:13 Re: damage control mode
Previous Message Robert Haas 2010-01-08 01:57:15 damage control mode