Re: PL/pgSQL bug?
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: PL/pgSQL bug? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 16453.997709920@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | RE: PL/pgSQL bug? ("Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>) |
| Ответы |
Re: PL/pgSQL bug?
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
"Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes:
> It's possible for a function to use a unique snapshot
> if there are only SELECT statements in the function
> but it's impossible if there are UPDATE/DELETE or
> SELECT .. FOR UPDATE statements etc.
You are confusing snapshots (which determine visibility of the results
of OTHER transactions) with command-counter incrementing (which
determines visibility of the results of OUR OWN transaction). I agree
that plpgsql's handling of command-counter changes is broken, but it
does not follow that sprinkling the code with SetQuerySnapshot is wise.
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: