From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
Cc: | Dan Ports <drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu>, "<pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: "serializable" in comments and names |
Date: | 2010-09-02 17:55:31 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTimL4PgCQRXc3iP4FjGXOtGN1Bp_T3usmYUcrEV5@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
>> 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?
OK, I see what you were going for. The current definition is:
#define IsXactIsoLevelSerializable (XactIsoLevel >= XACT_REPEATABLE_READ)
...which is certainly a bit odd, since you'd think it would be
comparing against XACT_SERIALIZABLE given the name.
IsXactIsoLevelRepeatableRead()?
XactUsesPerXactSnapshot()?
Or, inverting the sense of it, XactUsesPerStatementSnapshot()?
Just brainstorming...
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-09-02 18:23:37 | Re: "serializable" in comments and names |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-09-02 17:36:36 | Re: installcheck-world failure |