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.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Josh Berkus||Date: 2011-02-28 19:39:19|
|Subject: Re: Why our counters need to be time-based WAS: WIP: cross
column correlation ...|
|Previous:||From: Michael Glaesemann||Date: 2011-02-28 19:37:23|
|Subject: Re: Why our counters need to be time-based WAS: WIP: cross column correlation ... |