| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> |
| Cc: | Steve Singer <ssinger_pg(at)sympatico(dot)ca>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Review: Fix snapshot taking inconsistencies |
| Date: | 2011-02-28 19:36:10 |
| Message-ID: | 28345.1298921770@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> writes:
> On 2011-02-28 9:03 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> OK, and which behavior is getting changed, to what? I am not interested
>> in trying to reverse-engineer a specification from the patch.
> My recollection is (and the archives seem to agree) that normal
> execution and SQL functions were changed to only advance the CID instead
> of taking a new snapshot. EXPLAIN ANALYZE and SPI (not exactly sure
> about this one) did that already so they were just changed to use the
> new API.
OK, so the intent is that in all cases, we just advance CID and don't
take a new snapshot between queries that were generated (by rule
expansion) from a single original parsetree? But we still take a new
snap between original parsetrees? Works for me.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Glaesemann | 2011-02-28 19:37:23 | Re: Why our counters need to be time-based WAS: WIP: cross column correlation ... |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-02-28 19:32:19 | Re: Sync Rep v17 |