| 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, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Review: Fix snapshot taking inconsistencies |
| Date: | 2011-02-28 19:39:17 |
| Message-ID: | 4D6BF9E5.6020008@cs.helsinki.fi |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2011-02-28 9:36 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Marko Tiikkaja<marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> writes:
>> On 2011-02-28 9:03 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> OK, and which behavior is getting changed, to what? I am not interested
>>> in trying to reverse-engineer a specification from the patch.
>
>> My recollection is (and the archives seem to agree) that normal
>> execution and SQL functions were changed to only advance the CID instead
>> of taking a new snapshot. EXPLAIN ANALYZE and SPI (not exactly sure
>> about this one) did that already so they were just changed to use the
>> new API.
>
> OK, so the intent is that in all cases, we just advance CID and don't
> take a new snapshot between queries that were generated (by rule
> expansion) from a single original parsetree? But we still take a new
> snap between original parsetrees? Works for me.
Exactly.
Regards,
Marko Tiikkaja
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2011-02-28 19:39:19 | Re: Why our counters need to be time-based WAS: WIP: cross column correlation ... |
| Previous Message | Michael Glaesemann | 2011-02-28 19:37:23 | Re: Why our counters need to be time-based WAS: WIP: cross column correlation ... |