- From: Aaron Boodman <aa@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:15:10 -0700
- To: "Nikunj R. Mehta" <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>
- Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Laxmi Narsimha Rao Oruganti <Laxmi.Oruganti@microsoft.com>
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta<nikunj.mehta@oracle.com> wrote: > I am not proposing to take away your choice. But please don't take away > mine. > > It would be useful to see an explanation as to why the proposal I made > [[ > add an isolation level parameter with a default value of SERIALIZABLE and > remove the exclusive database-level write lock requirement > ]] > > is worse than the current spec text. You can refer to SQL92 explain the > meaning of SERIALIZABLE. AFAIK, there are no interoperability problems with > transaction isolation levels. I'm personally not opposed to adding more isolation levels in addition to the current single option of SERIALIZABLE. It could be added as an argument to transaction(). I don't think it is a particularly high value feature, but I also don't see a big problem with it. And I can imagine that some particularly ambitious developers might want to take advantage of it. - a
Received on Saturday, 25 July 2009 01:15:50 UTC