| From: | Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca> |
|---|---|
| To: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> |
| 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 22:14:36 |
| Message-ID: | 1079043275.86715.119.camel@jester |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On Thu, 2004-03-11 at 17:01, scott.marlowe wrote:
> 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:
It's not a gonna, what exists in -TIP is what you get.
Peter did this very shortly after 7.5 development started.
START TRANSACTION
[ ISOLATION LEVEL { READ UNCOMMITTED | READ COMMITTED | REPEATABLE
READ | SERIALIZABLE } ]
[ READ WRITE | READ ONLY ]
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2004-03-12 01:21:29 | Re: ZDNet story (well, publicity from some |
| Previous Message | scott.marlowe | 2004-03-11 22:01:39 | Re: Comparison of PGSQL and DB2 |