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 snapshots (which determine visibility of the results
> of OTHER transactions) with command-counter incrementing (which
> determines visibility of the results of OUR OWN transaction). I agree
> that plpgsql's handling of command-counter changes is broken, but it
> does not follow that sprinkling the code with SetQuerySnapshot is wise.
Why do you blame PL/pgSQL for that? I don't see a single reference to the command counter from the PL/pgSQL
sources. All it does is using SPI. So does "using SPI" by itself count as "boken"?
If so, uh-oh, referential integrity is using SPI ...
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
