| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Dan Ports" <drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "<pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: "serializable" in comments and names |
| Date: | 2010-09-02 19:13:54 |
| Message-ID: | 4C7FB12202000025000350B2@gw.wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> +1 for adding parens; we might want to make a function of it
> someday.
Makes sense; will do.
> I don't much like the "XactUses..." aspect of it; that's just
> about meaningless, because almost everything in PG could be said
> to be "used" by a transaction. How about
> IsolationUsesXactSnapshot (versus IsolationUsesStmtSnapshot)?
And IsolationIsSerializable to make that test symmetrical?
Any objections to this plan?
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-09-02 20:13:38 | Re: Interruptible sleeps (was Re: CommitFest 2009-07: Yay, Kevin! Thanks, reviewers!) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-09-02 19:07:40 | Re: "serializable" in comments and names |