Robert Haas escribió:
> 4. If we use GetActiveSnapshot, all the comments about about a fresh
> MVCC snapshot still apply. However, the snapshot in question could be
> even more stale, especially in repeatable read or serializable mode.
> However, this might be thought a more consistent behavior than what we
> have now. And I'm guessing that this function is typically run as its
> own transaction, so in practice this doesn't seem much different from
> an MVCC snapshot, only cheaper.
>
> At the moment, I dislike #2 and slightly prefer #4 to #3.
+1 for #4, and if we ever need more then we can provide a non-default
way to get at #2.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
