| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <kevin(dot)grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, 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: | 2010-09-08 17:02:08 |
| Message-ID: | 5686.1283965328@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mi sep 08 12:12:31 -0400 2010:
>> AFAIR it doesn't keep the first snapshot around. If it did, most of
>> your work on snapshot list trimming would have been useless, no?
> That's my point precisely. The name "IsolationUsesXactSnapshot" makes
> it sound like it applies to any transaction that uses snapshots for
> isolation, doesn't it?
I don't think so, at least not when compared to the alternative
IsolationUsesStmtSnapshot.
> How about IsolationUses1stXactSnapshot
This just seems longer, not really better. In particular, we have
*always* adhered to the phraseology that a "transaction snapshot"
is the first one taken in a transaction, so I don't see exactly
why it's confusing you now.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Boszormenyi Zoltan | 2010-09-08 17:05:59 | Re: plan time of MASSIVE partitioning ... |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-09-08 16:51:11 | Re: "serializable" in comments and names |