| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: transaction_isolation vs. default_transaction_isolation |
| Date: | 2010-02-22 18:08:49 |
| Message-ID: | 201002221808.o1MI8nS10098@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> > Yeah, they basically have semantics specified by the SQL standard that
> > are not compatible with anything else in GUC land. They are more like
> > SET LOCAL settings, but again not quite.
>
> Mind you, transaction_isolation and transaction_read_only aren't
> documented anywhere in our docs *as settings*, even though they show up
> in pg_settings.
>
> Doc patch coming ...
What are we doing with this?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
PG East: http://www.enterprisedb.com/community/nav-pg-east-2010.do
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-02-22 18:12:13 | Re: Wire protocol docs |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-02-22 18:01:26 | Re: What does this configure warning mean? |