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

Re: Review: Fix snapshot taking inconsistencies

From: Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Steve Singer <ssinger_pg(at)sympatico(dot)ca>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Review: Fix snapshot taking inconsistencies
Date: 2011-02-28 19:39:17
Message-ID: 4D6BF9E5.6020008@cs.helsinki.fi (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 2011-02-28 9:36 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Marko Tiikkaja<marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi>  writes:
>> On 2011-02-28 9:03 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> OK, and which behavior is getting changed, to what?  I am not interested
>>> in trying to reverse-engineer a specification from the patch.
>
>> My recollection is (and the archives seem to agree) that normal
>> execution and SQL functions were changed to only advance the CID instead
>> of taking a new snapshot.  EXPLAIN ANALYZE and SPI (not exactly sure
>> about this one) did that already so they were just changed to use the
>> new API.
>
> OK, so the intent is that in all cases, we just advance CID and don't
> take a new snapshot between queries that were generated (by rule
> expansion) from a single original parsetree?  But we still take a new
> snap between original parsetrees?  Works for me.

Exactly.


Regards,
Marko Tiikkaja

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2011-02-28 19:39:19
Subject: Re: Why our counters need to be time-based WAS: WIP: cross column correlation ...
Previous:From: Michael GlaesemannDate: 2011-02-28 19:37:23
Subject: Re: Why our counters need to be time-based WAS: WIP: cross column correlation ...

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