Re: Should we SetQuerySnapshot() between actions of a rule?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Should we SetQuerySnapshot() between actions of a rule?
Date: 2003-05-01 17:35:20
Message-ID: 17343.1051810520@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info> writes:
> On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 11:55:45AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> interactive execution. But which one do we want? I could see an
>> argument that it'd be best for all the actions of a rule to see a
>> consistent snapshot of the state of other transactions; and not doing
>> the extra SetQuerySnapshot() calls would save some cycles.

> Can't you get the consistent snapshot by running SERIALIZABLE anyway?

Yeah, but that may do more than you want (like force a rollback on
update conflicts...)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Sullivan 2003-05-01 17:59:00 Re: Should we SetQuerySnapshot() between actions of a rule?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-05-01 17:32:11 Re: select ... into question