Re: Do we need a TODO? (was Re: [HACKERS] Concurrently updating an updatable view)

2007-05-28 Thread Bruce Momjian

Added to TODO:

* Fix self-referential UPDATEs seeing inconsistent row versions in
  read-committed mode

  http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-05/msg00507.php


---

Richard Huxton wrote:
 Florian G. Pflug wrote:
  
  Is there consensus what the correct behaviour should be for
  self-referential updates in read-committed mode? Does the SQL Spec
  have anything to say about this?
 
 This seems to have gone all quiet. Do we need a TODO to keep a note of 
 it? Just correct behaviour for self-referential updates
 
 Hiroshi originally noted the problem in one of his views here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-05/msg00507.php
 
 -- 
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
 
 ---(end of broadcast)---
 TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at

http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate


Do we need a TODO? (was Re: [HACKERS] Concurrently updating an updatable view)

2007-05-22 Thread Richard Huxton

Florian G. Pflug wrote:


Is there consensus what the correct behaviour should be for
self-referential updates in read-committed mode? Does the SQL Spec
have anything to say about this?


This seems to have gone all quiet. Do we need a TODO to keep a note of 
it? Just correct behaviour for self-referential updates


Hiroshi originally noted the problem in one of his views here:
  http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-05/msg00507.php

--
  Richard Huxton
  Archonet Ltd

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
  choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
  match