Excerpts from Marko Tiikkaja's message of vie jul 23 14:13:18 -0400 2010:
> On 7/23/2010 8:52 PM, David Fetter wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 08:43:35PM +0300, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
> >> Did I misunderstand the code? And if I didn't, why do we do this
> >> differently?
> >
> > You mentioned in IRC that this was in aid of getting wCTEs going. How
> > are these things connected?
>
> Currently, I'm trying to make wCTEs behave a bit like RULEs do. But if
> every rewrite product takes a new snapshot, wCTEs will behave very
> unpredictably.
I don't think it's fair game to change the behavior of multiple-output
rules at this point. However, I also think that it's unwise to base
wCTEs on the behavior of rules -- rules are widely considered broken and
unusable for nontrivial cases.
Also, I think that having a moving snapshot for the different parts of a
wCTE is going to mean they're unpredictable. For predictable usage
you'll be forcing the user to always wrap them in SERIALIZABLE
transactions.
In short I think a wCTE should only advance the CID, not get a whole new
snapshot.