Re: [BUG] failed assertion in EnsurePortalSnapshotExists()

On 9/29/21 1:23 PM, Ranier Vilela wrote:
>
> Em qua., 29 de set. de 2021 às 08:12, Drouvot, Bertrand
> <bdrouvot(at)amazon(dot)com> escreveu:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 9/29/21 12:59 PM, Ranier Vilela wrote:
>>
>> Em qua., 29 de set. de 2021 às 06:55, Drouvot, Bertrand
>> <bdrouvot(at)amazon(dot)com> escreveu:
>>
>> I'm also inclined to #1.
>>
>> I have a stupid question, why duplicate PushActiveSnapshot?
>> Wouldn't one function be better?
>>
>> PushActiveSnapshot(Snapshot snap, int as_level);
>>
>> Sample calls:
>> PushActiveSnapshot(GetTransactionSnapshot(),
>> GetCurrentTransactionNestLevel());
>> PushActiveSnapshot(queryDesc->snapshot,
>> GetCurrentTransactionNestLevel());
>> PushActiveSnapshot(GetTransactionSnapshot(), portal->createSubid);
>
> I would say because that could "break" existing extensions for
> example.
>
> Adding a new function prevents "updating" existing extensions
> making use of PushActiveSnapshot().
>
> Valid argument of course.
> But the extensions should also fit the core code.
> Duplicating functions is very bad for maintenance and bloats the code
> unnecessarily, IMHO.
>
Right. I don't have a strong opinion about this.

Let's see what Tom, Alvaro or others arguments/opinions are (should they
also want to go with option #1).

Thanks

Bertrand