| From: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Triggered Data Change check |
| Date: | 2001-11-12 03:40:59 |
| Message-ID: | 3BEF44CB.944BB1E4@tpf.co.jp |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> > Strictly speaking MVCC is only for read-only queries.
> > Even under MVCC, update, delete and select .. for update have
> > to see the newest tuples.
>
> True. But my point is that we already have mechanisms to deal with
> that set of issues; the trigger code shouldn't concern itself with
> the problem.
You are saying
> Therefore we don't need any explicit test for triggered data
> change.
ISTM your point is on the following.
> Functions can run new commands that get new command ID numbers within
> the current transaction --- but on return from the function, the current
> command number is restored. I believe rows inserted by such a function
> would look "in the future" to us at the outer command, and would be
> ignored.
My point is why we could ignore the (future) changes.
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephan Szabo | 2001-11-12 03:54:32 | Re: Triggered Data Change check |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-11-12 03:11:26 | Re: Triggered Data Change check |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephan Szabo | 2001-11-12 03:54:32 | Re: Triggered Data Change check |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-11-12 03:11:26 | Re: Triggered Data Change check |