On 2010-01-26 17:11, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Merlin Moncure escribió: > >> *) CopySnapshot was promoted from static. Is this legal/good idea? >> Is a wrapper more appropriate? > > Hmm ... I wonder why isn't the patch doing RegisterSnapshot with the > passed snapshot directly -- why is it necessary to create a new copy of > it? (I notice that only one of the arms in that "if" creates a copy; > if that is correct, I think it warrants a comment explaining why).
Per discussion here: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-11/msg01964.php the executor copies the snapshot if it plans on modifying it. A comment explaining this might be in order. > If the copy is necessary (e.g. because the snapshot must not be modified > externally, and there's actual risk that it is), then maybe it would be > better to create a new function RegisterSnapshotCopy instead? Sounds reasonable. Regards, Marko Tiikkaja -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers