There are many comments in the code which use "serializable transaction" to mean "transaction snapshot based transaction". This doesn't matter much as long as REPEATABLE READ and SERIALIZABLE transaction isolation levels behave identically, but will be confusing and inaccurate when there is any difference between the two. In a similar way, the static bool registered_serializable in snapmgr.c will become misleading, and the IsXactIsoLevelSerializable macro is bound to lead to confusion. The patch to implement true serializable transactions using SSI renames/rewords these things to avoid confusion. However, there are seven files which are changed only for this reason, and another where there is one "real" change of two lines hidden in the midst of dozens of lines of such wording changes. I find it distracting to have all this mixed in, and I fear that it will be a time-waster for anyone reviewing the meat of the patch. I'd like to submit a "no-op" patch to cover these issues in advance of the CF, to get them out of the way. Joe suggested that I pose the issue to the -hackers list. I could knock out a couple other files from the main patch if people considered it acceptable to enable the SHMQueueIsDetached function now, which the patch uses in several places within asserts. I would remove the #ifdef NOT_USED from around the (very short) function, and add it to the .h file. The changes to the comments and local variables seem pretty safe. The change of IsXactIsoLevelSerializable to IsXactIsoLevelXactSnapshotBased (or whatever name the community prefers) could break the compile of external code; but the fix would be pretty obvious. It's hard to see how the change of a local variable name would present a lot of risk. So I see this as an extremely low-risk no-op patch to lay the groundwork for the main patch, so that it is easier to read. Thoughts? -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
