| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <kevin(dot)grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Dan Ports <drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "<pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: "serializable" in comments and names |
| Date: | 2010-09-08 16:41:21 |
| Message-ID: | 1283963981-sup-9057@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié sep 08 12:12:31 -0400 2010:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> > Excerpts from Kevin Grittner's message of vie sep 03 19:06:17 -0400 2010:
> >>> How about IsolationUsesXactSnapshot
>
> > I find this name confusing :-( Doesn't a READ COMMITTED transaction use
> > transaction snapshots as well?
>
> AFAIR it doesn't keep the first snapshot around. If it did, most of
> your work on snapshot list trimming would have been useless, no?
That's my point precisely. The name "IsolationUsesXactSnapshot" makes
it sound like it applies to any transaction that uses snapshots for
isolation, doesn't it? How about IsolationUses1stXactSnapshot, or
something else that makes it clearer that there's a difference between
that and read committed transactions?
--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-09-08 16:51:11 | Re: "serializable" in comments and names |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-09-08 16:26:52 | Re: plan time of MASSIVE partitioning ... |