From: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] COPY with no WAL, in certain circumstances |
Date: | 2007-01-07 18:15:26 |
Message-ID: | 1168193727.3951.130.camel@silverbirch.site |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Sun, 2007-01-07 at 11:29 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > ... The active-portal kluge that you've just
> > mentioned is nothing but a kluge, proving that you thought of some cases
> > where it would fail. But I doubt you thought of everything.
>
> BTW, a sufficient counterexample for that kluge is that neither SPI or
> SQL-function execution use a separate portal for invoked commands. Thus
> testing whether there's only one active portal isn't sufficient to prove
> that you're not inside a function executing in serializable mode, and
> thus it could have a transaction snapshot predating the COPY.
Chewing the last pieces of my Bowler hat while reading. I don't have
many left ;-(
> It's conceivable that it's safe anyway, or could be made so with some
> rejiggering of the tests in tqual.c, but counting active portals doesn't
> do anything to help.
I'll rethink, but as you say, with separate proposal and patch.
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2007-01-07 18:25:19 | Re: security definer default for some PL languages (SQL/PSM)? |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-01-07 18:04:58 | Re: [HACKERS] COPY with no WAL, in certain circumstances |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2007-01-07 18:58:24 | Re: SGML index build fix |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-01-07 18:04:58 | Re: [HACKERS] COPY with no WAL, in certain circumstances |