Re: BUG #1231: Probelm with transactions in stored code.

Robert Treat wrote:

> On Thu, 2004-08-26 at 09:08, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
>
>>Robert Treat wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 2004-08-26 at 04:23, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Tom Lane wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone.bigpanda.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I believe it sees the one that was valid in the snapshot as of the
>>>>>>beginning of the function.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Actually, the problem is that it can see *both* that row and the updated
>>>>>row; it's a crapshoot which one will be returned by the SELECT INTO.
>>>>
>>>>Confirmed, if the last select is:
>>>>
>>>>select count(*) into a from test where id=1;
>>>>
>>>>this return 2. There is a space for a new bug considering that if the
>>>>table have the unique index on id that select must return 1.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The reason this can happen is that we're not doing SetQuerySnapshot
>>>>>between commands of a plpgsql function.  There is discussion going way
>>>>>way back about whether we shouldn't do so (see the archives).  I think
>>>>>the major reason why we have not done it is fear of introducing
>>>>>non-backwards-compatible behavior.  Seems like 8.0 is exactly the right
>>>>>version to consider doing that in.
>>>>
>>>>If my 2 cents are valid I agree with you, what I don't totally agree is why
>>>>consider this bug as a *feature* in previous 8.0 version.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I don't think this was ever considered a feature (at least I never found
>>>any evidence of that) but more the concern was that it was "expected
>>>behavior" and changing that behavior might toss people into a loop who
>>>were expecting it.
>>
>>Yes, I used the wrong expression is not a feature but a gotcha.
>>I fairly trust that someone is currently using this behaviour considering it
>>the good expected one.
>>
>
>
> Really? I don't.

Me neither but I'm realizing now that I wrote the opposite I would write :-)

Sorry for the noise, see my previous post.


Regards
Gaetano Mendola