| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Compatibility GUC for serializable |
| Date: | 2011-01-11 00:52:40 |
| Message-ID: | 4D2BA9D8.80204@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> If we must have a GUC, perhaps we could publish a sunset one release in
> the future.
I was thinking default to false/off in 9.1, and disappear in 9.3.
> Really, the biggest risk of such a GUC is the confusion factor when
> supporting people. If we're told that the transactions involved in
> some scenario were all run at the SERIALIZABLE isolation level, we
> would need to wonder how many *really* were, and how many were (as
> David put it) at the NOTREALLYSERIALIZABLEBUTLABELEDASSERIALIZABLE
> isolation level?
How is this different from our other backwards-compatibility GUCs?
--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-01-11 00:55:57 | Re: Compatibility GUC for serializable |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-01-11 00:52:35 | Re: Bug in pg_describe_object |