Re: [HACKERS] getting rid of SnapshotNow

On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> 4. If we use GetActiveSnapshot, all the comments about about a fresh
>> MVCC snapshot still apply.  However, the snapshot in question could be
>> even more stale, especially in repeatable read or serializable mode.
>> However, this might be thought a more consistent behavior than what we
>> have now.  And I'm guessing that this function is typically run as its
>> own transaction, so in practice this doesn't seem much different from
>> an MVCC snapshot, only cheaper.
>>
>> At the moment, I dislike #2 and slightly prefer #4 to #3.
>
> +1 for #4, and if we ever need more then we can provide a non-default
> way to get at #2.

OK, done.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company