From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Hiroshi Inoue <inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-odbc(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [ODBC] getting rid of SnapshotNow |
Date: | 2013-07-19 16:11:23 |
Message-ID: | 25211.1374250283@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-odbc |
Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2013-07-20 00:49:11 +0900, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
>> Using SnapshotSelf instead of SnapshotNow for currtid_ () wouldn't
>> matter.
> I think it actually might. You could get into dicey situations if you
> use currtid_ in a query performing updates or inserts because it would
> see the to-be-inserted tuple...
I'm pretty sure Hiroshi-san was only opining about whether it would
matter for ODBC's usage. IIUC, ODBC is using this function to re-fetch
rows that it inserted, updated, or at least selected-for-update in a
previous command of the current transaction, so actually any snapshot
would do fine.
In any case, since I moved the goalposts by suggesting that SnapshotSelf
is just as dangerous as SnapshotNow, what we need to know is whether
it'd be all right to change this code to use a fresh MVCC snapshot;
and if not, why not. It's pretty hard to see a reason why client-side
code would want to make use of the results of a non-MVCC snapshot.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2013-07-19 16:23:56 | Re: Using ini file to setup replication |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2013-07-19 16:09:24 | LOCK TABLE Permissions |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2013-07-19 16:29:33 | Re: getting rid of SnapshotNow |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2013-07-19 16:02:30 | Re: [HACKERS] getting rid of SnapshotNow |