Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Greg Sabino Mullane <g...@endpoint.com> wrote: >> Eh? It has an off switch: repeatable read. > > You mean: if we recode the application and retest it, we can get > it to work same way as it used to. > > To most people that is the same thing as "it doesn't work with > this release", ask any application vendor. > > There is no off switch and there should be. This was discussed at some length, and nobody seemed to favor a behavior-changing GUC. One example of such a thread is here: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-05/msg01165.php It came up at least a couple other times, and the outcome was always the same -- after discussion, nobody was in favor of a GUC to make the semantics of these statement variable. I'm sorry if you missed those discussions. It would certainly be a trivial change to implement; the problem is convincing others that it's a good idea. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
