| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> |
| Subject: | Re: Review of Writeable CTE Patch |
| Date: | 2010-01-26 15:11:02 |
| Message-ID: | 20100126151102.GD3380@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Merlin Moncure escribió:
> *) CopySnapshot was promoted from static. Is this legal/good idea?
> Is a wrapper more appropriate?
Hmm ... I wonder why isn't the patch doing RegisterSnapshot with the
passed snapshot directly -- why is it necessary to create a new copy of
it? (I notice that only one of the arms in that "if" creates a copy;
if that is correct, I think it warrants a comment explaining why).
If the copy is necessary (e.g. because the snapshot must not be modified
externally, and there's actual risk that it is), then maybe it would be
better to create a new function RegisterSnapshotCopy instead?
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marko Tiikkaja | 2010-01-26 15:16:53 | Re: Review of Writeable CTE Patch |
| Previous Message | Marko Tiikkaja | 2010-01-26 15:06:44 | Re: Review of Writeable CTE Patch |