On 2010-11-08 6:38 PM +0200, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas<robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Tom Lane<t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
I guess I shoulda been paying closer attention :-(. That really, really
seems like fundamentally the wrong direction. What was it that was
unfixable about the other way? If it is unfixable, should we revert
ModifyTable?
The relevant thread is here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-02/msg00783.php
My opinion is still the same as here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-02/msg00688.php
namely, that all we should be worrying about is a tuplestore full of
RETURNING tuples. Any other side-effects of a DML subquery should
*not* be visible to the calling query, and therefore all this argument
about snapshots and seqscan limits is beside the point.
What happened to:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-10/msg00566.php ?
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
