Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Hmm ... but that "close" can't unregister the snapshot immediately, >> because you'd lose if the 2nd savepoint gets rolled back, no? Is the >> handling of this case even correct at the moment?
> No, CLOSE is not rolled back: > ... > Maybe this is possible to fix, but again I think it's outside the scope > of this patch. I'd forgotten that ... seems a bit bogus, and it's certainly not documented on the CLOSE reference page. >> ISTM correct handling of this example would require that the "close" >> not really discard the snap until commit. Then, given proper ordering >> of the cleanup operations at commit, you might be able to still have the >> cross-check about s_level in UnregisterSnapshot. (IOW, maybe having >> snapshot cleanup be late in the commit sequence wasn't such a good >> choice...) > Right -- I'll move them earlier. Well, without a clear idea of where to place them instead, you might as well leave it alone for the moment. I'd like to see this revisited sometime though. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches