Re: Serializable implementation - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Serializable implementation
Date
Msg-id 603c8f071001071802j7e4479fch30867f4a6a7e17ea@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Serializable implementation  (Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>)
Responses Re: Serializable implementation
List pgsql-hackers
>> I'm torn between thinking it would be good to spell it that way and
>> thinking that we should have "serializable_isolation_implementation"
>> GUC (or something to that effect) which maps to an enumeration
>> containing "snapshot" and "ssi".  Opinions welcome, since I've put
>> that GUC at the top of my implementation list.  :-)

Hmm.  Why would we use a GUC for this instead of an additional option
to BEGIN TRANSACTION?

I would think:

BEGIN TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL {READ COMMITTED | SNAPSHOT | SERIALIZABLE}

With our current levels being the first two of those.

Or is that a bad idea?

...Robert


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: damage control mode
Next
From: David Fetter
Date:
Subject: Re: damage control mode