On 02.07.2013 18:24, Andres Freund wrote:
> I've quickly verified that it indeed uses them. I wish I hadn't. Brrr. I
> can't even guess what that should do from the surrounding code/function
> names. Except that it looks broken under concurrency as long as
> SnapshotNow is used (because the query's snapshot won't be as new as
> SnapshotNow, even in read committed mode).
>
> Heikki, do you understand the code well enough to explain it without
> investing time?
No, sorry. I think it has something to do with updateable cursors, but I
don't understand the details.
- Heikki