On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > I am more concerned about the care needed when placing > CommandCounterIncrement()'s somewhere though. It seems more than likely > that this will get repeatedly broken, even if it's not atm (which I > doubt). E.g. inheritance handling seems to be rather wonky WRT this.
There may well be bugs. I am fine with reviewing patches to improve the code in this area, but I don't plan to take it upon myself to rewrite that code. Either it's working as expected, or nobody's using it, because we're not getting any bug reports. >> Not that I really object if someone wants to have a go at getting rid >> of SnapshotSelf, but I think it'd be worth articulating what we hope >> to accomplish by so doing. > > Agreed. From the internal usages there doesn't seem to be too much > pressure. So unless there are objections to the patch as posted, I'm going to apply that next week. This in no way precludes more work in this area later, but since we're likely to break third-party code with this change, we might as well get it out of the way as early in the release cycle as possible. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
