From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | tender wang <tndrwang(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Why cann't simplify stable function in planning phase? |
Date: | 2023-02-08 14:57:04 |
Message-ID: | 3485170.1675868224@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Note: To be precise this is not about "executions" but about snapshots,
> and we could probably simplify the function call with isolation levels
> that maintain a single snapshot (e.g. REPEATABLE READ). But we don't.
We don't do that because, in fact, execution is *never* done with the same
snapshot used for planning. See comment in postgres.c:
* While it looks promising to reuse the same snapshot for query
* execution (at least for simple protocol), unfortunately it causes
* execution to use a snapshot that has been acquired before locking
* any of the tables mentioned in the query. This creates user-
* visible anomalies, so refrain. Refer to
* https://postgr.es/m/flat/5075D8DF(dot)6050500(at)fuzzy(dot)cz for details.
I'm not entirely sure that that locking argument still holds, but having
been burned once I'm pretty hesitant to try that again.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Erik Rijkers | 2023-02-08 15:12:39 | Re: OpenSSL 3.0.0 vs old branches |
Previous Message | Dag Lem | 2023-02-08 14:31:20 | Re: daitch_mokotoff module |