On Sun, 2007-01-07 at 11:29 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: > > ... The active-portal kluge that you've just > > mentioned is nothing but a kluge, proving that you thought of some cases > > where it would fail. But I doubt you thought of everything. > > BTW, a sufficient counterexample for that kluge is that neither SPI or > SQL-function execution use a separate portal for invoked commands. Thus > testing whether there's only one active portal isn't sufficient to prove > that you're not inside a function executing in serializable mode, and > thus it could have a transaction snapshot predating the COPY.
Chewing the last pieces of my Bowler hat while reading. I don't have many left ;-( > It's conceivable that it's safe anyway, or could be made so with some > rejiggering of the tests in tqual.c, but counting active portals doesn't > do anything to help. I'll rethink, but as you say, with separate proposal and patch. -- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
