| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: synchronized snapshots |
| Date: | 2011-08-20 13:56:58 |
| Message-ID: | 201108201356.p7KDuw323285@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On tis, 2011-08-16 at 20:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > In fact, now that I think about it, setting the transaction snapshot
> > from a utility statement would be functionally useful because then you
> > could take locks beforehand.
>
> Another issue is that in some client interfaces, BEGIN and COMMIT are
> hidden behind API calls, which cannot easily be changed or equipped with
> new parameters. So in order to have this functionality available
> through those interfaces, we'd need a separately callable command.
How do they set a transaction to SERIALIZABLE? Seem the same syntax
should be used here.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2011-08-20 14:34:39 | Re: Re: Should we have an optional limit on the recursion depth of recursive CTEs? |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-08-20 12:15:04 | Re: the big picture for index-only scans |