On 2023-07-01 01:47, Tom Lane wrote:
Seino Yuki writes:
Of course, executing SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL with SPI_execute
will result in error.
---
SPI_execute("SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL SERIALIZABLE", false, 0);
(Log Output)
ERROR: SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL must be called b
Seino Yuki writes:
> Of course, executing SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL with SPI_execute
> will result in error.
> ---
> SPI_execute("SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL SERIALIZABLE", false, 0);
> (Log Output)
> ERROR: SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL must be called before any query
> CONTEXT: S
On 2023-07-01 00:06, Tom Lane wrote:
Seino Yuki writes:
I also thought that using SPI_start_transaction would be more readable
than using SPI_commit/SPI_rollback to implicitly start a transaction.
What do you think?
I think you're trying to get us to undo commit 2e517818f, which
is not going
Seino Yuki writes:
> I also thought that using SPI_start_transaction would be more readable
> than using SPI_commit/SPI_rollback to implicitly start a transaction.
> What do you think?
I think you're trying to get us to undo commit 2e517818f, which
is not going to happen. See the threads that le
Thanks for the reply!
On 2023-06-30 23:26, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 30/06/2023 17:15, Seino Yuki wrote:
Hi,
When I read the documents and coding of SPI, [1]
I found that the following the SPI_start_transaction does not support
transaciton_mode(ISOLATION LEVEL, READ WRITE/READ ONLY) like BE
On 30/06/2023 17:15, Seino Yuki wrote:
Hi,
When I read the documents and coding of SPI, [1]
I found that the following the SPI_start_transaction does not support
transaciton_mode(ISOLATION LEVEL, READ WRITE/READ ONLY) like BEGIN
command. [2]
Is there a reason for this?
Per the documentation fo
