On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 14:01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 13:21 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Except that it *is* a change in behavior: the first check will occur
> >> too soon.
> > Sooner matters why?
> Consider PREPARE followed only later by EXECUTE. Your proposal would
> make the PREPARE fail outright, when it currently does not.
Just to avoid wasted investigation: are you saying that is important
behaviour that is essential we retain in PostgreSQL, or will you hear
evidence that supporting that leads to a performance decrease elsewhere?
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Kevin Grittner||Date: 2010-07-09 18:49:50|
|Subject: Re: WIP patch for serializable transactions with predicate locking|
|Previous:||From: Joshua D. Drake||Date: 2010-07-09 18:03:54|
|Subject: Re: FYI: Ubuntu 10.04 lucid strange segfault|
pgsql-committers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-07-09 21:11:48|
|Subject: pgsql: Fix ruleutils' get_variable() to print something useful for Vars |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-07-09 18:01:11|
|Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add a hook in ExecCheckRTPerms(). |