From: | Victor Yegorov <vyegorov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Pierre Forstmann <pierre(dot)forstmann(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Unexpected results from CALL and AUTOCOMMIT=off |
Date: | 2024-06-03 18:15:07 |
Message-ID: | CAGnEbojf5Awm862ghvooLku6mm0m4yF60PyHQxCinM8pn01sbw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
пн, 3 июн. 2024 г. в 20:40, Pierre Forstmann <pierre(dot)forstmann(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> You declared function f_get_x as stable which means:
>
> …
>
> If you remove stable from function declaration, it works as expected:
>
Well, I checked
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/xfunc-volatility.html
There's a paragraph describing why STABLE (and IMMUTABLE) use different
snapshots:
> For functions written in SQL or in any of the standard procedural
languages, there is a second important property determined by the
volatility category, namely the visibility of any data changes that have
been made by the SQL command that is calling the function. A > VOLATILE
function will see such changes, a STABLE or IMMUTABLE function will not.
This behavior is implemented using the snapshotting behavior of MVCC (see
Chapter 13): STABLE and IMMUTABLE functions use a snapshot established as
of the start of the
> calling query, whereas VOLATILE functions obtain a fresh snapshot at the
start of each query they execute.
But later, docs state, that
> Because of this snapshotting behavior, a function containing only SELECT
commands can safely be marked STABLE, even if it selects from tables that
might be undergoing modifications by concurrent queries. PostgreSQL will
execute all commands of a STABLE function using the snapshot established
for the calling query, and so it will see a fixed view of the database
throughout that query.
And therefore I assume STABLE should work in this case. Well, it seems not
to.
I assume there's smth to do with implicit BEGIN issued in non-AUTOCOMMIT
mode and non-atomic DO block behaviour.
--
Victor Yegorov
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-06-03 19:28:10 | Re: Unexpected results from CALL and AUTOCOMMIT=off |
Previous Message | Pierre Forstmann | 2024-06-03 17:40:24 | Re: Unexpected results from CALL and AUTOCOMMIT=off |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2024-06-03 18:30:21 | Re: Psql meta-command conninfo+ |
Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2024-06-03 18:03:31 | Re: Will there be https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PgCon_2024_Developer_Unconference ? |