On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Tom Lane wrote: > It seems to me that it'd be fairly easy to make BEGIN cause only > a local state change in the backend; the actual transaction need not > start until the first subsequent command is received. It's already > true that the transaction snapshot is not frozen at BEGIN time, but > only when the first DML or DDL command is received; so this would > have no impact on the client-visible semantics. But a BEGIN-then- > sleep-for-awhile client wouldn't interfere with VACUUM anymore.
What about serializable mode? Wouldn't that break it? ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
