On Sat, Aug 13, 2005 at 06:22:06PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> This strikes me as a pretty unreasonable restriction. It would be OK
> if there were no valid uses of SPI that didn't require a snapshot, but
> that's not so. As an example, consider trying to issue a LOCK TABLE
> command via SPI (okay, there are other ways to do that, but it's still
> a valid example).
You can lock a table even while you have no valid snapshot? I thought
that without a valid snapshot you couldn't do anything, except access
system tables which are exempt from the usual snapshot rules.
In that case it may be better to document the failure case in SPI_exec.
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> Patent. n. Genius is 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration. A patent is a
> tool for doing 5% of the work and then sitting around waiting for someone
> else to do the other 95% so you can sue them.
In response to
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Martijn van Oosterhout||Date: 2005-08-14 12:24:19|
|Subject: Re: [PATCH] Clarify issues with SPI and C language function limitations|
|Previous:||From: Andreas Pflug||Date: 2005-08-14 09:52:28|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] For review: Server instrumentation patch|