> If we must have a GUC, perhaps we could publish a sunset one release in
> the future.
I was thinking default to false/off in 9.1, and disappear in 9.3.
> Really, the biggest risk of such a GUC is the confusion factor when
> supporting people. If we're told that the transactions involved in
> some scenario were all run at the SERIALIZABLE isolation level, we
> would need to wonder how many *really* were, and how many were (as
> David put it) at the NOTREALLYSERIALIZABLEBUTLABELEDASSERIALIZABLE
> isolation level?
How is this different from our other backwards-compatibility GUCs?
--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
