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

Re: Comparison of PGSQL and DB2

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 (view raw or flat)
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.


In response to

Responses

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Rod TaylorDate: 2004-03-11 22:14:36
Subject: Re: Comparison of PGSQL and DB2
Previous:From: Rod TaylorDate: 2004-03-11 21:39:30
Subject: Re: Comparison of PGSQL and DB2

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