| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] COPY with no WAL, in certain circumstances |
| Date: | 2007-01-07 16:29:08 |
| Message-ID: | 12920.1168187348@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
I wrote:
> ... The active-portal kluge that you've just
> mentioned is nothing but a kluge, proving that you thought of some cases
> where it would fail. But I doubt you thought of everything.
BTW, a sufficient counterexample for that kluge is that neither SPI or
SQL-function execution use a separate portal for invoked commands. Thus
testing whether there's only one active portal isn't sufficient to prove
that you're not inside a function executing in serializable mode, and
thus it could have a transaction snapshot predating the COPY.
It's conceivable that it's safe anyway, or could be made so with some
rejiggering of the tests in tqual.c, but counting active portals doesn't
do anything to help.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-01-07 16:35:06 | Re: [HACKERS] SGML index build fix |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-01-07 16:14:11 | Re: [HACKERS] COPY with no WAL, in certain circumstances |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-01-07 16:35:06 | Re: [HACKERS] SGML index build fix |
| Previous Message | Michael Fuhr | 2007-01-07 16:23:23 | Update UTF-8 RFC reference |