Re: transaction_isolation vs. default_transaction_isolation

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: transaction_isolation vs. default_transaction_isolation
Date: 2009-10-13 17:53:12
Message-ID: 4AD4BE88.5070807@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


> Yeah, they basically have semantics specified by the SQL standard that
> are not compatible with anything else in GUC land. They are more like
> SET LOCAL settings, but again not quite.

Mind you, transaction_isolation and transaction_read_only aren't
documented anywhere in our docs *as settings*, even though they show up
in pg_settings.

Doc patch coming ...

--Josh Berkus

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dave Page 2009-10-13 17:53:56 Re: Wire protocol docs
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-10-13 17:38:21 Re: Client application name