Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I could knock out a couple other files from the main patch if
>> people considered it acceptable to enable the SHMQueueIsDetached
>> function now, which the patch uses in several places within
>> asserts. I would remove the #ifdef NOT_USED from around the
>> (very short) function, and add it to the .h file.
>
> -1.
OK, I'll leave that part out.
>> The changes to the comments and local variables seem pretty
>> safe. The change of IsXactIsoLevelSerializable to
>> IsXactIsoLevelXactSnapshotBased (or whatever name the community
>> prefers)
>
> How about IsXactIsoLevelSnapshot? Just to be a bit shorter.
I need two macros -- one which has the same definition as the
current IsXactIsoLevelSerializable, to be used everywhere the old
macro name currently is used, which conveys that it is an isolation
level which is based on a transaction snapshot rather than statement
snapshots (i.e., REPEATABLE READ or SERIALIZABLE) and a new macro
(which I was planning to call IsXactIsoLevelFullySerializable) which
conveys that it is the SERIALIZABLE isolation level. Do you feel
that IsXactIsoLevelSnapshot works with
IsXactIsoLevelFullySerializable to convey the right semantics? If
not, what would you suggest?
I'm not attached to any particular names; what matters is that when
people see them, they get the right meanings from them. I have some
concern that IsXactIsoLevelSnapshot might suggest that it excludes
the fully serializable transaction isolation level.
-Kevin