On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 08:43:34PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > It seems to me that the > > root of the issue here is that people is not that people expect two > > snapshots -- indeed, a number of people strongly supported getting rid > > of that behavior at the time -- but rather that they expect the > > snapshot to be taken after locks are acquired. > > Sure. Maybe we can rejigger things in a way that does that, although > I think the stumbling block is going to be parse-time calls to > user-defined I/O functions for constants --- which might need a > snapshot. It might be possible to redesign things so that all tables > are locked before we do anything that requires a non-SnapshotNow > snapshot, and then take a single "planning/execution" snapshot. But > that is not this patch, and would be a lot more invasive than this > patch, and would certainly not be back-patchable to 9.2. > > I think we have to revert and go back to the drawing board on this.
Is reverting going to adversely affect users who are already using the 9.2 behavior? -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
