Re: Why overhead of SPI is so large? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Pavel Stehule
Subject Re: Why overhead of SPI is so large?
Date
Msg-id CAFj8pRDjC9=jJ9mvK3ju8=YiErZJo4cxe5LfrkJjXVbdjM3m8w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Why overhead of SPI is so large?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Why overhead of SPI is so large?  (Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>)
List 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

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: obsolete example
Next
From: Craig Ringer
Date:
Subject: Re: checkpointer: PANIC: could not fsync file: No such file or directory