Re: Review: Fix snapshot taking inconsistencies

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Steve Singer <ssinger_pg(at)sympatico(dot)ca>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Review: Fix snapshot taking inconsistencies
Date: 2011-02-24 15:21:41
Message-ID: 10682.1298560901@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> writes:
> On 2011-02-24 2:31 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The connection is the question of where to do CommandCounterIncrement
>> between successive DML WITH operations in a single command.

> .. what? We decided *not* to do any CommandCounterIncrements between
> DML WITHs.

Oh, did we decide to do it that way? OK with me, but the submitted docs
are woefully inadequate on the point. This behavior is going to have to
be explained extremely clearly (and even so, I bet we'll get bug reports
about it :-().

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Euler Taveira de Oliveira 2011-02-24 15:28:50 Re: Named restore points
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2011-02-24 15:07:35 Re: WIP: cross column correlation ...