Re: transaction_isolation vs. default_transaction_isolation

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: transaction_isolation vs. default_transaction_isolation
Date: 2009-10-13 05:22:30
Message-ID: 1255411350.15145.109.camel@jdavis
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 22:13 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> However, for *two* settings, and two settings only, we distinguish that
> by naming an identical setting "default_*" in postgresql.conf. This is
> confusing and inconsistent with the rest of the GUCS. Namely:
>
> default_transaction_isolation
> default_transaction_read_only

I think they are named "default_" because whatever you specify at the
beginning of a transaction overrides the GUC.

For example, in:
BEGIN TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL READ COMMITTED;
SET default_transaction_isolation=serializable;
...

the "default_" makes it more clear which setting overrides the other.

Regards,
Jeff Davis

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Itagaki Takahiro 2009-10-13 05:28:44 Re: transaction_isolation vs. default_transaction_isolation
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2009-10-13 05:13:33 transaction_isolation vs. default_transaction_isolation