Re: Serializable implementation

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
Cc: Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2010-01-08T02:02:52Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
>> I'm torn between thinking it would be good to spell it that way and
>> thinking that we should have "serializable_isolation_implementation"
>> GUC (or something to that effect) which maps to an enumeration
>> containing "snapshot" and "ssi".  Opinions welcome, since I've put
>> that GUC at the top of my implementation list.  :-)

Hmm.  Why would we use a GUC for this instead of an additional option
to BEGIN TRANSACTION?

I would think:

BEGIN TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL {READ COMMITTED | SNAPSHOT | SERIALIZABLE}

With our current levels being the first two of those.

Or is that a bad idea?

...Robert