| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <kevin(dot)grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Dan Ports <drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "<pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: "serializable" in comments and names |
| Date: | 2010-09-08 16:51:11 |
| Message-ID: | 201009081651.o88GpBg21043@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> > Excerpts from Kevin Grittner's message of vie sep 03 19:06:17 -0400 2010:
> >>> How about IsolationUsesXactSnapshot
>
> > I find this name confusing :-( Doesn't a READ COMMITTED transaction use
> > transaction snapshots as well?
>
> AFAIR it doesn't keep the first snapshot around. If it did, most of
> your work on snapshot list trimming would have been useless, no?
Technically, serializable uses a single transaction snapshot and read
committed uses statement snapshots.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-09-08 17:02:08 | Re: "serializable" in comments and names |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2010-09-08 16:41:21 | Re: "serializable" in comments and names |