| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | "Tatsuo Ishii" <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PL/pgSQL bug? |
| Date: | 2001-08-13 13:38:40 |
| Message-ID: | 16453.997709920@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> It's possible for a function to use a unique snapshot
> if there are only SELECT statements in the function
> but it's impossible if there are UPDATE/DELETE or
> SELECT .. FOR UPDATE statements etc.
You are confusing snapshots (which determine visibility of the results
of OTHER transactions) with command-counter incrementing (which
determines visibility of the results of OUR OWN transaction). I agree
that plpgsql's handling of command-counter changes is broken, but it
does not follow that sprinkling the code with SetQuerySnapshot is wise.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-08-13 13:47:09 | Re: example program bug? |
| Previous Message | Justin Clift | 2001-08-13 13:25:42 | Re: Re: [PATCHES] Select parser at runtime |