Robert Haas escribió: > 4. If we use GetActiveSnapshot, all the comments about about a fresh > MVCC snapshot still apply. However, the snapshot in question could be > even more stale, especially in repeatable read or serializable mode. > However, this might be thought a more consistent behavior than what we > have now. And I'm guessing that this function is typically run as its > own transaction, so in practice this doesn't seem much different from > an MVCC snapshot, only cheaper. > > At the moment, I dislike #2 and slightly prefer #4 to #3.
+1 for #4, and if we ever need more then we can provide a non-default way to get at #2. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
