Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: BUG #1231: Probelm with transactions in stored code.

From: Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com>
To: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>
Subject: Re: BUG #1231: Probelm with transactions in stored code.
Date: 2004-08-27 18:31:30
Message-ID: 412F7E02.1030302@bigfoot.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs
Robert Treat wrote:

> On Thu, 2004-08-26 at 09:08, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
> 
>>Robert Treat wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 2004-08-26 at 04:23, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Tom Lane wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I believe it sees the one that was valid in the snapshot as of the
>>>>>>beginning of the function.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Actually, the problem is that it can see *both* that row and the updated
>>>>>row; it's a crapshoot which one will be returned by the SELECT INTO.
>>>>
>>>>Confirmed, if the last select is:
>>>>
>>>>select count(*) into a from test where id=1;
>>>>
>>>>this return 2. There is a space for a new bug considering that if the
>>>>table have the unique index on id that select must return 1.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The reason this can happen is that we're not doing SetQuerySnapshot
>>>>>between commands of a plpgsql function.  There is discussion going way
>>>>>way back about whether we shouldn't do so (see the archives).  I think
>>>>>the major reason why we have not done it is fear of introducing
>>>>>non-backwards-compatible behavior.  Seems like 8.0 is exactly the right
>>>>>version to consider doing that in.
>>>>
>>>>If my 2 cents are valid I agree with you, what I don't totally agree is why
>>>>consider this bug as a *feature* in previous 8.0 version.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I don't think this was ever considered a feature (at least I never found
>>>any evidence of that) but more the concern was that it was "expected
>>>behavior" and changing that behavior might toss people into a loop who
>>>were expecting it. 
>>
>>Yes, I used the wrong expression is not a feature but a gotcha.
>>I fairly trust that someone is currently using this behaviour considering it
>>the good expected one.
>>
> 
> 
> Really? I don't. 

Me neither but I'm realizing now that I wrote the opposite I would write :-)

Sorry for the noise, see my previous post.


Regards
Gaetano Mendola










In response to

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-08-28 03:21:05
Subject: Re: Apologies if you don't consider this a bug and I've wasted your time.
Previous:From: Gaetano MendolaDate: 2004-08-27 18:24:54
Subject: Re: BUG #1231: Probelm with transactions in stored code.

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group