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 (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to