Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VgPZz-0005MI-24 for pgsql-docs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 01:49:15 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VgPZy-0003ke-8h for pgsql-docs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 01:49:14 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VgPZo-0003Vk-Kl for pgsql-docs@postgresql.org; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 01:49:04 +0000 Received: from sam.nabble.com ([216.139.236.26]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VgPZl-0007jY-P8 for pgsql-docs@postgresql.org; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 01:49:04 +0000 Received: from [192.168.236.26] (helo=sam.nabble.com) by sam.nabble.com with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1VgPZk-0004vk-Uq for pgsql-docs@postgresql.org; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 17:49:00 -0800 Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 17:49:00 -0800 (PST) From: David Johnston To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org Message-ID: <1384307340948-5778039.post@n5.nabble.com> In-Reply-To: <20131113013935.GB24549@momjian.us> References: <20331.1384221575@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20131112021954.GD15562@momjian.us> <21328.1384223235@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20131112024609.GG15562@momjian.us> <1384226759124-5777852.post@n5.nabble.com> <20131112151427.GH15562@momjian.us> <1384299361317-5778016.post@n5.nabble.com> <20131113012949.GA24549@momjian.us> <1384306523691-5778033.post@n5.nabble.com> <20131113013935.GB24549@momjian.us> Subject: Re: MVCC snapshot timing MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Pg-Spam-Score: 1.8 (+) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-docs Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-docs-owner@postgresql.org Bruce Momjian wrote > Oh, OK, it sounds fine. The user really doesn't choose what timeline to > see --- rather, it is the current xid at the time they take their > snapshot and other running xids that controls that. You can control > your transaction isolation level, but that only controls how often you > take snapshots. ^ This kind of makes my point. You've described perfectly the mechanics of the system but from a mostly black-box perspective a user-decision (choosing the isolation level) directly impacts which point-in-time (xid) is chosen for the snapshot behind a particular SQL statement. The fact they can only choose between two pre-defined and relative points-in-time is a detail to explain later but the fact is they are required to make such a choice (one is provided by default but still one chooses - even if through ignorance - to use the default) as an outcome of MVCC should be included - in some form - in the introduction. In the current, proposed, and my revisions it is indeed covered but to various degrees of detail and low/high level focus. David J. -- View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/MVCC-snapshot-timing-tp5777759p5778039.html Sent from the PostgreSQL - docs mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs