Added to TODO:
* Allow more ISOLATION LEVELS to be accepted, but issue a
warning for them
---
Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I think we could allow users to set the tra
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think we could allow users to set the transaction isolation level to
> READ UNCOMMITTED or REPEATABLE READ and internally behave like READ
> COMMITTED or SERIALIZABLE, respectively. The SQL standard seems to allow
> this:
My reading is that the spe
On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I think we could allow users to set the transaction isolation level to
> READ UNCOMMITTED or REPEATABLE READ and internally behave like READ
> COMMITTED or SERIALIZABLE, respectively. The SQL standard seems to allow
> this:
Why not.
I would like a w
I think we could allow users to set the transaction isolation level to
READ UNCOMMITTED or REPEATABLE READ and internally behave like READ
COMMITTED or SERIALIZABLE, respectively. The SQL standard seems to allow
this:
[speaking about SET TRANSACTION]
5) The isolation level of TXN is set
