| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Inoue, Hiroshi" <h-inoue(at)dream(dot)email(dot)ne(dot)jp>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Hiroshi Saito <hiroshi(at)winpg(dot)jp>, "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Removal of currtid()/currtid2() and some table AM cleanup |
| Date: | 2020-11-21 01:12:09 |
| Message-ID: | 20201121011209.GA6052@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 11:53:11AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah, if pgODBC were not using it at all then I think it'd be fine
> to get rid of, but if it still contains calls then we cannot.
> The suggestion upthread that those calls might be unreachable
> is interesting, but it seems unproven.
Yeah, I am not 100% sure that there are no code paths calling
currtid2(), and the ODBC is too obscure to me to get to a clear
conclusion. currtid() though, is a different deal thanks to
RETURNING. What about cutting the cake in two and just remove
currtid() then?
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-11-21 01:19:42 | Re: scram-sha-256 broken with FIPS and OpenSSL 1.0.2 |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2020-11-21 01:04:20 | Re: Different results between PostgreSQL and Oracle for "for update" statement |