Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe
Date
Msg-id CA+U5nMJmHizgiH2TZQWvxftMYjT1Td-WLHB5-PsaoSVQeh9cBA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe  (Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>)
Responses Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe  (Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>)
Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 05:09:16PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> Attached patch makes SnapshotNow into an MVCC snapshot, initialised at
>> the start of each scan iff SnapshotNow is passed as the scan's
>> snapshot. It's fairly brief but seems to do the trick.
>
> That's a neat trick.  However, if you start a new SnapshotNow scan while one is
> ongoing, the primordial scan's snapshot will change mid-stream.

Do we ever do that? (and if so, Why?!? or perhaps just Where?)

We can use more complex code if required, but we'll be adding
complexity and code into the main path that I'd like to avoid.

--
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: SQL:2011 features
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: SQL:2011 features