Re: time stops within transaction

From: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Alex Pilosov <alex(at)pilosoft(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: time stops within transaction
Date: 2000-10-19 04:42:51
Message-ID: 39EE7BCB.C5BBAC8E@tpf.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:

> Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> >>>> Postgres doesn't have an idea of what a 'top-level' statement is? I.E.
> >>>> statement as submitted by a client (libpq)?
> >>
> >> There's never been any reason to make such a distinction.
>
> > There's already a distinction.
> > Snapshot is made per top-level statement and functions/subqueries
> > use the same snapshot as that of top-level statement.
>
> Not so. SetQuerySnapshot is executed per querytree, not per top-level
> statement --- for example, if a rule generates multiple queries from
> a user statement, SetQuerySnapshot is called again for each query.
>
> With the current structure of pg_exec_query_string(), an operation
> executed in the outer loop, rather than the inner, would more or less
> correspond to one "top level" query --- if you want to assume that
> pg_exec_query_string() is only called from PostgresMain. That's
> true today but hasn't always been true --- I believe it used to be
> used to parse SPI commands, and someday it may be again.
>

If there's no concept of top-level statement,there's no
concept of read consistency and MVCC isn't needed.

Regards.

Hiroshi Inoue.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2000-10-19 04:43:14 SetQuerySnapshot() for utility statements
Previous Message Thomas Lockhart 2000-10-19 04:39:00 Re: Re: pg_dump docs