| From: | "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca> |
| Cc: | Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to>, Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Postgresql Advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Comparison of PGSQL and DB2 |
| Date: | 2004-03-11 22:01:39 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.33.0403111500190.18068-100000@css120.ihs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, Rod Taylor wrote:
> > are we just
> > pretending to set the level in 7.5 but still using the next level higher?
>
> I believe Peter found verbiage in the spec that said to do exactly that.
> Something about the isolation level being the minimum requirement, and
> better than that was acceptable.
Oh, good. So we're gonna support:
set TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL READ UNCOMMITTED;
by just setting the level to set READ COMMITTED when we get the request.
Will the transaction isolation level var SAY we're in READ UNCOMMITTED
when it's set, or will it show READ COMMITTED? Just wondering.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rod Taylor | 2004-03-11 22:14:36 | Re: Comparison of PGSQL and DB2 |
| Previous Message | Rod Taylor | 2004-03-11 21:39:30 | Re: Comparison of PGSQL and DB2 |