Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> wrote: > On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 15:34 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote: >> (C) One or more GUCs will be added to control whether the new >> behavior is used when serializable transaction isolation is >> requested or whether, for compatibility with older PostgreSQL >> releases, the transaction actually runs with snapshot isolation. >> In any event, a request for repeatable read mode will provide the >> existing snapshot isolation mode. > > I'm not sure a GUC is the best way here, are you talking about as a > migration path, or something that would exist forever? I've gotten the distinct impression that some would prefer to continue to use their existing techniques under snapshot isolation. I was sort of assuming that they would want a GUC to default to legacy behavior with a new setting for standard compliant behavior. Another alternative here would be to just change a request for a serializable transation to give you a serializable transaction, and document that the existing snapshot isolation is now available only by requesting repeatable read mode. Right now you get snapshot isolation mode on a request for either repeatable read mode or serializable mode. I think that many people only use read committed; they would not be impacted at all. What do you think would be best here? -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers