On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
