From: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Steve Singer <ssinger_pg(at)sympatico(dot)ca>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Review: Fix snapshot taking inconsistencies |
Date: | 2010-10-12 22:36:30 |
Message-ID: | 4CB4E2EE.3090009@cs.helsinki.fi |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2010-10-13 1:21 AM +0300, Tom Lane wrote:
> Marko Tiikkaja<marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> writes:
>> Here's a new version of the patch, deprecating pg_parse_and_rewrite.
>
> I started looking at this patch, and I'm wondering why you inserted all
> the Register/UnregisterSnapshot calls that weren't there before (eg, why
> did spi.c have to change at all?). ISTM either these are not necessary,
> or there is a pre-existing snapshot management bug that's independent
> of the question of just when to take new snapshots. I couldn't find
> anything in the thread claiming the latter though.
That's actually just my ignorance I forgot to mention. As I understand
it, our code currently first pushes one snapshot and then does multiple
PushActiveSnapshot (or PushUpdatedSnapshot)/PopActiveSnapshot rounds
before popping the oldest snapshot off the stack (and releasing it). So
in the patch, I would've had to push the snapshot twice the first time
to avoid it being released.
Thinking about it now, that might be a better option. Or maybe we
should change the snapshot API to make this more convenient?
The spi.c change also changes the logic; the SPI code currently takes a
new snapshot for every query if the caller doesn't provide a snapshot.
Regards,
Marko Tiikkaja
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2010-10-12 22:54:21 | Re: SQL command to edit postgresql.conf, with comments |
Previous Message | Darren Duncan | 2010-10-12 22:34:42 | Re: SQL command to edit postgresql.conf, with comments |