Re: PL/pgSQL bug?
От | Tatsuo Ishii |
---|---|
Тема | Re: PL/pgSQL bug? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20010811111939X.t-ishii@sra.co.jp обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: PL/pgSQL bug? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: PL/pgSQL bug?
Re: PL/pgSQL bug? |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> I believe the reason for this is that in Read Committed mode, > each separate query from the client computes a new snapshot (see > SetQuerySnapshot calls in postgres.c). So, when your > "select ctid, i from t1" query executes, it computes a snapshot > that says T1 is committed, and then it doesn't see the row left > over from T1. On the other hand, your plpgsql function operates > inside a single client query and so it's using just one QuerySnaphot. Oh I see. So the "problem" is not specific to PL/pgSQL, but exists in all our procedual languages. > One way to make the results equivalent is to compute a new QuerySnapshot > for each SPI query. Quite aside from the cost of doing so, I do not > think it makes sense, considering that the previous QuerySnapshot must > be restored when we return from the function. Do we really want > functions to see transaction status different from what's seen outside > the function call? I doubt it. > > The other way to make the results the same is to omit the > SetQuerySnapshot calls for successive client-issued queries in one > transaction. This could perhaps be defended on logical grounds, > but considering your complaint I'm not sure it would make people > happier. Ok, maybe another workaround might be adding a checking for cmax in the subselect: SELECT INTO myid i FROM t1 WHERE i = (SELECT i FROM t1 WHERE i = 1); to make sure that cmax > 0? -- Tatsuo Ishii
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: