Re: why do we need two snapshots per query?

From: Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: why do we need two snapshots per query?
Date: 2011-11-11 16:00:12
Message-ID: A70E3B1B-73A5-476B-AE21-42099772B965@phlo.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Nov11, 2011, at 16:18 , Robert Haas wrote:
> In the extend query protocol scenario, it seems to me that keeping the
> snapshot would be both wrong and a bad idea. It would be wrong
> because the user will (I think) expect the query can see all rows that
> were marked as committed prior to Execute message. It would be a bad
> idea because we'd have to keep that snapshot advertised for the entire
> time between Parse and Execute, even if the client was sitting there
> doing nothing for a long time, which would hold back RecentGlobalXmin.

Hm, but that'd penalize clients who use the extended query protocol, which
they have to if they want to transmit out-of-line parameters. You could
work around that by making the extended protocol scenario work like the
simply protocol scenario if the unnamed statement and/or portal is used.

Since clients presumably use pipelined Parse,Bind,Execute messages when
using the unnamed statement and portal, they're unlikely to observe the
difference between a snapshot taken during Parse, Bind or Execute.

best regards,
Florian Pflug

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2011-11-11 16:06:29 Re: why do we need two snapshots per query?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2011-11-11 15:47:48 Re: Manual anti-wraparound vacuums