Re: How to share the result data of separated plan
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: How to share the result data of separated plan |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 25871.1289234305@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение |
| Ответ на | Re: How to share the result data of separated plan (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: How to share the result data of separated plan
Re: How to share the result data of separated plan |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> I guess I shoulda been paying closer attention :-(. �That really, really >> seems like fundamentally the wrong direction. �What was it that was >> unfixable about the other way? �If it is unfixable, should we revert >> ModifyTable? > The relevant thread is here: > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-02/msg00783.php My opinion is still the same as here: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-02/msg00688.php namely, that all we should be worrying about is a tuplestore full of RETURNING tuples. Any other side-effects of a DML subquery should *not* be visible to the calling query, and therefore all this argument about snapshots and seqscan limits is beside the point. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: