Re: synchronized snapshots - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: synchronized snapshots
Date
Msg-id 201108201356.p7KDuw323285@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: synchronized snapshots  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
Responses Re: synchronized snapshots
List 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@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + It's impossible for everything to be true. +


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: the big picture for index-only scans
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: Should we have an optional limit on the recursion depth of recursive CTEs?