> Mainly, that it's not clear we need it. Nobody's pointed to a concrete > failure mechanism that makes it necessary for an existing app to run > under fake-SERIALIZABLE mode.
I think it's quite possible that you're right, and nobody depends on current SERIALIZABLE behavior because it's undependable. However, we don't *know* that -- most of our users aren't on the mailing lists, especially those who use packaged vendor software. That being said, the case for a backwards-compatiblity GUC is weak, and I'd be ok with not having one barring someone complaining during beta, or survey data showing that there's more SERIALIZABLE users than we think. Oh, survey: http://www.postgresql.org/community/ -- -- 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
