Re: PL/pgSQL bug?

From: Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PL/pgSQL bug?
Date: 2001-08-13 15:16:28
Message-ID: 200108131516.f7DFGSI07417@jupiter.us.greatbridge.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> >> that plpgsql's handling of command-counter changes is broken, but it
> >> does not follow that sprinkling the code with SetQuerySnapshot is wise.
>
> > Why do you blame PL/pgSQL for that? I don't see a single
> > reference to the command counter from the PL/pgSQL sources.
> > All it does is using SPI. So does "using SPI" by itself count
> > as "boken"?
>
> Sorry: SPI is broken, not plpgsql. Does that make you feel better?

Not that it "makes my day". But it makes me feel better,
thanks.

Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2001-08-13 15:25:33 Re: To be 7.1.3 or not to be 7.1.3?
Previous Message Alex Avriette 2001-08-13 14:54:34 drop-in-ability (was: RE: Re: [PATCHES] Select parser a t runtime )