| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: why do we need two snapshots per query? |
| Date: | 2011-11-11 22:04:59 |
| Message-ID: | 12331.1321049099@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Tom, in that earlier thread you said you'd be doing something in this
> release about that. Can you say more about what that was, and will you
> be doing it still?
I think that largely supersedes what I understood your notion of a
one-shot plan to be about, though perhaps I missed something?
I don't think this has a lot to do with what Robert is on about, since
in any situation where a plan is cached for later, we surely are not
going to use the same snapshot to execute it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-11-11 23:28:25 | Re: VACUUM touching file but not updating relation |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2011-11-11 22:02:00 | Re: foreign key locks, 2nd attempt |