Re: Serializable implementation

On Thu, 2010-01-07 at 16:27 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Could you draft a proposed doc change?  While my ideas have
> sometimes influenced the docs, my words don't tend to make it, so
> I'm probably not the best candidate to suggest something.  (That's
> not actually a shocker for me, since I'm a visual thinker, and
> getting ideas into words is a bit slow and clumsy for me.)

Sure. I wonder how many doc-only patches are going to be in the Jan
commitfest?  ;)
> I'm torn between thinking it would be good to spell it that way and
> thinking that we should have "serializable_isolation_implementation"
> GUC (or something to that effect) which maps to an enumeration
> containing "snapshot" and "ssi".  Opinions welcome, since I've put
> that GUC at the top of my implementation list.  :-)

If there are different semantics, we shouldn't just call it an
implementation detail. Particularly when the old behavior violates the
standard (at least the newest version, I think).
> I'd be inclined to
> argue for changing the behavior of SERIALIZABLE in the first release
> where we have true serializable transactions implemented.

Ok, I don't have a strong opinion about that.

> It really depends on application code we might
> break, which is hard to determine.

Well, hopefully it doesn't break anything. Applications asking for
SERIALIZABLE should already be expecting serialization errors. Did you
have something else in mind?

Regards,Jeff Davis