Tom Lane wrote: > > Philip Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> The workaround for Forest is to make the final SELECT be a SELECT FOR > >> UPDATE, so that it's playing by the same rules as the earlier commands. > > > Eek. Does this seem good to you? > > I did call it a workaround ;-) > > I don't think that we dare try to make any basic changes in MVCC for 7.1 > at this late hour, so Forest is going to have to live with that answer > for awhile. But I would like to see a cleaner answer in future > releases. Is it the MVCC's restriction that each query inside a function must use the same snapshot ? > As I've opined before, the whole EvalPlanQual mechanism > strikes me as essentially bogus in any case... > How would you change it ? UPDATE/SELECT FOR UPDATE have to SELECT/UPDATE the latest tuples. I don't think of any simple way for 'SELECT FOR UPDATE' to have the same visibility as simple SELECT. regards, Hiroshi Inoue ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to