On 10/10/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Marko Kreen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On 10/10/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> * Why is txid_current_snapshot() excluding subtransaction XIDs? That > >> might be all right for the current uses in Slony/Skytools, but it seems > >> darn close to a bug for any other use. > > ... > > But I agree, supporting subtransactions makes the API more > > universal. And it wouldn't break Slony/PgQ current usage. > > After looking at this more closely, I think txid_current_snapshot is > okay as is, but is_visible_txid is probably buggy: the latter should be > folding subtransaction IDs to top-transaction IDs, no? If not, why not? > I hope the answer is "no" because otherwise the code will be at huge risk > from truncation of pg_subtrans, but it's not apparent why this behavior > is okay.
Could you describe bit more? The is_visible_txid() works on data returned by txid_current_snapshot()? How can there be any subtrans id's if txid_current_snapshot() wont return them? The basic idea is - only txid_current() and txid_current_snapshot() communicate with backend, rest of functions work on data returned by them. -- marko ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match