Re: Review: Fix snapshot taking inconsistencies

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi>
Cc: Steve Singer <ssinger_pg(at)sympatico(dot)ca>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Review: Fix snapshot taking inconsistencies
Date: 2011-02-28 18:22:45
Message-ID: 26603.1298917365@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> writes:
> [ latest version of snapshot-taking patch ]

I started to look at this, and find myself fairly confused as to what
the purpose is anymore. Reviewing the thread, there has been a lot of
discussion of refactoring the API of pg_parse_and_rewrite and related
functions exported by postgres.c; but the current patch seems to have
abandoned that goal (except for removing pg_parse_and_rewrite itself,
which doesn't seem to me to have a lot of point except as part of a
more general refactoring). With respect to the issue of changing
snapshot timing, most of the discussion around that seemed to start
from assumptions about the behavior of wCTEs that we've now abandoned.
And there was some discussion about rule behavior too, but it's not
clear to me whether this patch intends to change that or not. The
lack of any documentation change doesn't help here.

So: exactly what is the intended behavioral change as of now, and what
is the argument supporting that change?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2011-02-28 18:24:13 Re: Why our counters need to be time-based WAS: WIP: cross column correlation ...
Previous Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2011-02-28 18:19:46 Re: Why our counters need to be time-based WAS: WIP: cross column correlation ...