Re: [HACKERS] specifying repeatable read in PGOPTIONS

2014-02-09 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 5:06 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: On 2014-02-04 12:02:45 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes: On 2014-02-04 11:36:22 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: -1. This is not a general solution to the problem. There are other GUCs for

Re: [HACKERS] specifying repeatable read in PGOPTIONS

2014-02-09 Thread Andres Freund
On 2014-02-09 12:00:02 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 5:06 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: So I still think we should add read_committed, repeatable_read as aliases. Like Tom, I'm -1 on this. This is fixing the problem from the wrong end. Why? We do have

Re: [HACKERS] specifying repeatable read in PGOPTIONS

2014-02-09 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: On 2014-02-09 12:00:02 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 5:06 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: So I still think we should add read_committed, repeatable_read as aliases. Like Tom, I'm

Re: [HACKERS] specifying repeatable read in PGOPTIONS

2014-02-09 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: Why? We do have other options with aliases for option values and all other enum option has taken care not to need spaces. I think that's probably mostly a happy coincidence;

Re: [HACKERS] specifying repeatable read in PGOPTIONS

2014-02-09 Thread Andres Freund
On 2014-02-09 12:38:18 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: Why? We do have other options with aliases for option values and all other enum option has taken care not to need spaces.

Re: [HACKERS] specifying repeatable read in PGOPTIONS

2014-02-07 Thread Andres Freund
Hi Tom, On 2014-02-04 12:02:45 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes: On 2014-02-04 11:36:22 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: -1. This is not a general solution to the problem. There are other GUCs for which people might want spaces in the value. Sure, I didn't say

[HACKERS] specifying repeatable read in PGOPTIONS

2014-02-04 Thread Andres Freund
Hi, I recently had the need to bury the used isolation level in the connection string, but it turns out that doesn't work that well... PGOPTIONS='-c default_transaction_isolation=serializable' \ psql ... -c SHOW default_transaction_isolation works well enough, but PGOPTIONS='-c

Re: [HACKERS] specifying repeatable read in PGOPTIONS

2014-02-04 Thread Tom Lane
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes: PGOPTIONS='-c default_transaction_isolation=serializable' \ psql ... -c SHOW default_transaction_isolation works well enough, but PGOPTIONS='-c default_transaction_isolation=repeatable read' \ psql ... -c SHOW default_transaction_isolation

Re: [HACKERS] specifying repeatable read in PGOPTIONS

2014-02-04 Thread Andres Freund
On 2014-02-04 11:36:22 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes: PGOPTIONS='-c default_transaction_isolation=serializable' \ psql ... -c SHOW default_transaction_isolation works well enough, but PGOPTIONS='-c default_transaction_isolation=repeatable read' \

Re: [HACKERS] specifying repeatable read in PGOPTIONS

2014-02-04 Thread Tom Lane
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes: On 2014-02-04 11:36:22 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: -1. This is not a general solution to the problem. There are other GUCs for which people might want spaces in the value. Sure, I didn't say it was. But I don't see any oother values that are likely