Re: SetQuerySnapshot, once again

From: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SetQuerySnapshot, once again
Date: 2002-06-19 00:11:44
Message-ID: 3D0FCC40.BF2123F3@tpf.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
>
> "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
>
> > I already mentioned an opinion in 2001/09/08.
> > Both the command counters and the snapshots in a
> > function should advance except the leading SELECT
> > statements.
>
> I do not like the idea of treating the first select in a function
> differently from the rest. And such a rule wouldn't let you build
> guaranteed-stable functions anyway;

AFAIK there has been no analysis where we can get *stable*
functions. As far as I see, we can expect SELECT-only functions
to be *stable* if and only if they are surrounded by SELECT-only
*stable* functions.

regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
http://w2422.nsk.ne.jp/~inoue/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2002-06-19 00:47:08 Re: date_part
Previous Message Rudi Starcevic 2002-06-18 23:19:45 date_part