Re: Why overhead of SPI is so large?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Pavel Stehule
Тема Re: Why overhead of SPI is so large?
Дата
Msg-id CAFj8pRDjC9=jJ9mvK3ju8=YiErZJo4cxe5LfrkJjXVbdjM3m8w@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Why overhead of SPI is so large?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: Why overhead of SPI is so large?
Список pgsql-hackers


čt 21. 11. 2019 v 20:44 odesílatel Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> napsal:
Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> writes:
> čt 21. 11. 2019 v 10:31 odesílatel Konstantin Knizhnik <
> k.knizhnik@postgrespro.ru> napsal:
>> With contain_mutable_functions the patch becomes trivial.

> Stable functions doesn't need own snapshot too, so it is not fully correct,
> but it is on safe side.

No, I doubt that.  A stable function is allowed to inspect database state,
and if it's being called by a volatile function, it has every right to
expect that it'd see updates-so-far made by the volatile function.

for this I need new snapshot?


                        regards, tom lane

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Pavel Stehule
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: obsolete example
Следующее
От: Craig Ringer
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: checkpointer: PANIC: could not fsync file: No such file or directory