From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Writeable CTEs and empty relations |
Date: | 2010-02-10 00:19:56 |
Message-ID: | 1328.1265761196@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> writes:
> On 2010-02-08 21:30 +0200, I wrote:
>> This doesn't exactly work anymore since we modify the snapshot after
>> calling ExecInitScan(). I'm not really familiar with this part of the
>> code, so I'm asking: is there a simple enough way around this? Would
>> updating scan->rs_nblocks before scanning the first tuple be OK?
> I've looked at this some more, and the problem is a lot bigger than I
> originally thought. We'd basically be forced to do another initscan()
> before starting a new scan after the snapshot changed. One way to
> accomplish this would be that ExecutePlan() would leave a flag in EState
> whenever the scan nodes need to reinit.
> Does this sound completely unacceptable?
You still haven't explained why it's a good idea to change the snapshot
after the executor has started. Right at the moment I'm prepared to
reject the patch on that ground alone.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marko Tiikkaja | 2010-02-10 00:25:19 | Re: Writeable CTEs and empty relations |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-02-10 00:18:42 | Re: Some belated patch review for "Buffers" explain analyze patch |