Re: How to share the result data of separated plan
От | Marko Tiikkaja |
---|---|
Тема | Re: How to share the result data of separated plan |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4CD82D4E.8060107@cs.helsinki.fi обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: How to share the result data of separated plan (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: How to share the result data of separated plan
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2010-11-08 6:38 PM +0200, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas<robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: >> On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> I guess I shoulda been paying closer attention :-(. That really, really >>> seems like fundamentally the wrong direction. What was it that was >>> unfixable about the other way? If it is unfixable, should we revert >>> ModifyTable? > >> The relevant thread is here: >> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-02/msg00783.php > > My opinion is still the same as here: > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-02/msg00688.php > > namely, that all we should be worrying about is a tuplestore full of > RETURNING tuples. Any other side-effects of a DML subquery should > *not* be visible to the calling query, and therefore all this argument > about snapshots and seqscan limits is beside the point. What happened to: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-10/msg00566.php ? Regards, Marko Tiikkaja
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: