Re: PL/pgSQL bug?

Is this something that still needs fixing?

> > I believe the reason for this is that in Read Committed mode,
> > each separate query from the client computes a new snapshot (see
> > SetQuerySnapshot calls in postgres.c). So, when your
> > "select ctid, i from t1" query executes, it computes a snapshot
> > that says T1 is committed, and then it doesn't see the row left
> > over from T1. On the other hand, your plpgsql function operates
> > inside a single client query and so it's using just one QuerySnaphot.
>
> Oh I see. So the "problem" is not specific to PL/pgSQL, but exists in
> all our procedual languages.
>
> > One way to make the results equivalent is to compute a new QuerySnapshot
> > for each SPI query. Quite aside from the cost of doing so, I do not
> > think it makes sense, considering that the previous QuerySnapshot must
> > be restored when we return from the function. Do we really want
> > functions to see transaction status different from what's seen outside
> > the function call? I doubt it.
> >
> > The other way to make the results the same is to omit the
> > SetQuerySnapshot calls for successive client-issued queries in one
> > transaction. This could perhaps be defended on logical grounds,
> > but considering your complaint I'm not sure it would make people
> > happier.
>
> Ok, maybe another workaround might be adding a checking for cmax in
> the subselect:
>
> SELECT INTO myid i FROM t1 WHERE i = (SELECT i FROM t1 WHERE i = 1);
>
> to make sure that cmax > 0?
> --
> Tatsuo Ishii
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
>

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026