Re: PL/pgSQL bug?

Tom Lane wrote:
>
> "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> > It's possible for a function to use a unique snapshot
> > if there are only SELECT statements in the function
> > but it's impossible if there are UPDATE/DELETE or
> > SELECT .. FOR UPDATE statements etc.
>
> You are confusing

No.

> snapshots (which determine visibility of the results
> of OTHER transactions)

Yes.

> with command-counter incrementing (which
> determines visibility of the results of OUR OWN transaction).

Yes.

> I agree
> that plpgsql's handling of command-counter changes is broken,

Probably yes but

> but it
> does not follow that sprinkling the code with SetQuerySnapshot is wise.
>

Should both command counter and snapshots be changed
properly ? Please explain me why/how we could do with
no snapshot change in read committed mode.

regards,
Hiroshi Inoue