Re: why do we need two snapshots per query?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: why do we need two snapshots per query?
Date: 2011-11-11 18:17:06
Message-ID: 8227.1321035426@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> writes:
> Still, optimizing only the simple protocol seems weird.

Would it be sane to decree that the "statement snapshot" lasts until
Sync is received, in extended query mode?

But frankly I do not like any of these proposals. Making fundamental
changes in long-established semantics in the name of squeezing out a few
cycles is the wrong way to design software.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2011-11-11 18:20:17 Re: Manual anti-wraparound vacuums
Previous Message David Kerr 2011-11-11 17:30:18 Re: foreign key locks, 2nd attempt