On 2013-06-05 18:56:28 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> > Now, I did find a couple that I thought should probably stick with
> > SnapshotNow, specifically pgrowlocks and pgstattuple. Those are just
> > gathering statistical information, so there's no harm in having the
> > snapshot change part-way through the scan, and if the scan is long,
> > the user might actually regard the results under SnapshotNow as more
> > accurate. Whether that's the case or not, holding back xmin for those
> > kinds of scans does not seem wise.
>
> FWIW, I think if we're going to ditch SnapshotNow we should ditch
> SnapshotNow, full stop, even removing the tqual.c routines for it.
> Then we can require that *any* reference to SnapshotNow is replaced by
> an MVCC reference prior to execution, and throw an error if we actually
> try to test a tuple with that snapshot.
I suggest simply renaming it to something else. Every external project
that decides to follow the renaming either has a proper usecase for it
or the amount of sympathy for them keeping the old behaviour is rather
limited.
> If they really want that sort of uncertain semantics they could use
> SnapshotDirty, no?
Not that happy with that. A scan behaving inconsistently over its
proceedings is something rather different than reading uncommitted
rows. I have the feeling that trouble is waiting that way.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
-- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services
