Re: Should we SetQuerySnapshot() between actions of a rule?

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: Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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?