Re: Review: Fix snapshot taking inconsistencies

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi>, 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 18:30:14
Message-ID: AANLkTimYeJwUj-YAsV_QvENz0gcB+DAn1R4xNWvJ1vZ0@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> 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?

IIUC, this is the result of countless rounds of communal bikeshedding around:

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-07/msg01256.php

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2011-02-28 18:31:29 Re: Why our counters need to be time-based WAS: WIP: cross column correlation ...
Previous Message Robert Haas 2011-02-28 18:24:13 Re: Why our counters need to be time-based WAS: WIP: cross column correlation ...