Re: "serializable" in comments and names
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: "serializable" in comments and names |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 5686.1283965328@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: "serializable" in comments and names (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: "serializable" in comments and names
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes: > Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié 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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: