Tatsuo Ishii wrote: > > > > One way to make the results equivalent is to compute a new QuerySnapshot > > > for each SPI query. Quite aside from the cost of doing so, I do not > > > think it makes sense, considering that the previous QuerySnapshot must > > > be restored when we return from the function. Do we really want > > > functions to see transaction status different from what's seen outside > > > the function call? > > > > Yes I do. > > Me too. Current behavior of procedural languages seem hard to > understand for users. >
Yes it's a siginificant point. I've referred to the impropriety to use a unique snapshot thoughout a function call when this kind of bug(?) was reported. Who could take care of it in writing PL/pgSQL ? > BTW, why must we restore the previous QuerySnapshot? For example, in the case such as select .., some_func(item1), .. from a_table; SELECT always uses the same snapshot for all its internal fetch operations, so it seems reasonable for each some_func() to be called in the same snapshot. It's possible for a function to use a unique snapshot if there are only SELECT statements in the function but it's impossible if there are UPDATE/DELETE or SELECT .. FOR UPDATE statements etc.. We should be careful to handle such functions which have side effects. IMHO we shouldn't call such functions or shouldn't expect consistent results with the use of such funtions. OTOH select some_func(..); is a procedure call not a function call in reality. There seems to be no necessity to restore the previous QuerySnapshot when calling procedures and we could call any function as a procedure. regards, Hiroshi Inoue ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
