Tom Lane wrote:
>
> "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
No.
> snapshots (which determine visibility of the results
> of OTHER transactions)
Yes.
> with command-counter incrementing (which
> determines visibility of the results of OUR OWN transaction).
Yes.
> I agree
> that plpgsql's handling of command-counter changes is broken,
Probably yes but
> but it
> does not follow that sprinkling the code with SetQuerySnapshot is wise.
>
Should both command counter and snapshots be changed
properly ? Please explain me why/how we could do with
no snapshot change in read committed mode.
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue