| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: synchronized snapshots |
| Date: | 2011-08-24 18:38:42 |
| Message-ID: | 1314211122.17771.3.camel@vanquo.pezone.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On lör, 2011-08-20 at 09:56 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On tis, 2011-08-16 at 20:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > In fact, now that I think about it, setting the transaction snapshot
> > > from a utility statement would be functionally useful because then you
> > > could take locks beforehand.
> >
> > Another issue is that in some client interfaces, BEGIN and COMMIT are
> > hidden behind API calls, which cannot easily be changed or equipped with
> > new parameters. So in order to have this functionality available
> > through those interfaces, we'd need a separately callable command.
>
> How do they set a transaction to SERIALIZABLE? Seem the same syntax
> should be used here.
The API typically has parameters to set the isolation level, since
that's a standardized property.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2011-08-24 18:44:24 | Re: "make -j4 world" falls over |
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2011-08-24 18:33:46 | Re: Should I implement DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY? |