| From: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: SetQuerySnapshot, once again |
| Date: | 2002-06-17 09:42:21 |
| Message-ID: | 3D0DAEFD.2AABCD25@tpf.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> I've been busy working on my presentation on concurrency for the
> upcoming O'Reilly conference. While doing so, I've been thinking
> more about the question of when to do SetQuerySnapshot calls inside
> functions. We've gone around on that before, without much of a
> consensus on what to do; see for example the thread starting at
> http://fts.postgresql.org/db/mw/msg.html?mid=1029236
>
> I have now become convinced that it is correct, in fact necessary,
> to do SetQuerySnapshot for each new user-supplied query, whether
> it's inside a function or not.
I have a question. Could the functions which contain no
queries other than SELECT be stable(returns the definite
result for a query) with it ?
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
http://w2422.nsk.ne.jp/~inoue/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vince Vielhaber | 2002-06-17 10:23:35 | Re: WITH handling in CREATE USER, etc |
| Previous Message | James Thornton | 2002-06-17 09:13:48 | Re: FATAL 2: InitRelink(logfile 0 seg 173) failed: No such |