| From: | Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Should we SetQuerySnapshot() between actions of a rule? |
| Date: | 2003-05-01 16:32:56 |
| Message-ID: | 20030501163256.GI10033@libertyrms.info |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 11:55:45AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> interactive execution. But which one do we want? I could see an
> argument that it'd be best for all the actions of a rule to see a
> consistent snapshot of the state of other transactions; and not doing
> the extra SetQuerySnapshot() calls would save some cycles.
> But perhaps we had better stick to our historical behavior.
> pg_exec_query_string has done a SetQuerySnapshot per query for a long
> time, and I can't recall anyone ever complaining about it.
Can't you get the consistent snapshot by running SERIALIZABLE anyway?
A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street
Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info> M2P 2A8
+1 416 646 3304 x110
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nigel J. Andrews | 2003-05-01 16:50:56 | Re: [HACKERS] "Adding missing from clause" (replacement) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-05-01 15:55:45 | Should we SetQuerySnapshot() between actions of a rule? |