From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Where to call SetQuerySnapshot |
Date: | 2002-10-08 18:33:03 |
Message-ID: | 3DA324DF.7070106@joeconway.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> I did this and ended up with a rather long list of statement types that
> might need a snapshot:
>
> elog(DEBUG2, "ProcessUtility");
>
> /* set snapshot if utility stmt needs one */
> /* XXX maybe cleaner to list those that shouldn't set one? */
> if (IsA(utilityStmt, AlterTableStmt) ||
> IsA(utilityStmt, ClusterStmt) ||
> IsA(utilityStmt, CopyStmt) ||
> IsA(utilityStmt, ExecuteStmt) ||
> IsA(utilityStmt, ExplainStmt) ||
> IsA(utilityStmt, IndexStmt) ||
> IsA(utilityStmt, PrepareStmt) ||
> IsA(utilityStmt, ReindexStmt))
> SetQuerySnapshot();
>
> (Anything that can call the planner or might create entries in
> functional indexes had better set a snapshot, thus stuff like
> ReindexStmt has the issue.)
>
> I wonder if we should turn this around, and set a snapshot for all
> utility statements that can't show cause why they don't need one.
> Offhand, TransactionStmt, FetchStmt, and VariableSet/Show/Reset
> might be the only ones that need be excluded. Comments?
It looks like an exclusion list would be easier to read and maintain.
Joe
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2002-10-08 21:41:24 | Re: inline newNode() |
Previous Message | Ron Johnson | 2002-10-08 17:42:20 | Re: CHAR, VARCHAR, TEXT (Was Large Databases) |