| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at> |
| Cc: | pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Static snapshot data |
| Date: | 2003-05-12 13:40:37 |
| Message-ID: | 8556.1052746837@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at> writes:
>> And isn't the patch going in quite the wrong
>> direction for nested transactions?
> Our (Alvaro's and my) current understanding is that snapshots are not
> influenced by nested transactions.
What was that long article Alvaro posted yesterday, then? He definitely
came to the conclusion that nested transactions need different
QuerySnapshots, and I think it was still open whether they need
different SerializableSnapshots.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-05-12 13:44:12 | Re: SET CONSTRAINTS not schema-aware |
| Previous Message | Christoph Haller | 2003-05-12 13:39:22 | Re: PostgreSQL Cookbook Site Down |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rod Taylor | 2003-05-12 13:55:26 | SQL99 CREATE TABLE ... (LIKE parent_table) |
| Previous Message | Manfred Koizar | 2003-05-12 06:53:02 | Re: Static snapshot data |