Re: How to share the result data of separated plan
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Marko Tiikkaja <marko.tiikkaja@cs.helsinki.fi>, Hitoshi Harada <umi.tanuki@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2010-11-08T16:38:25Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> I guess I shoulda been paying closer attention :-(. That really, really >> seems like fundamentally the wrong direction. What was it that was >> unfixable about the other way? If it is unfixable, should we revert >> ModifyTable? > The relevant thread is here: > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-02/msg00783.php My opinion is still the same as here: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-02/msg00688.php namely, that all we should be worrying about is a tuplestore full of RETURNING tuples. Any other side-effects of a DML subquery should *not* be visible to the calling query, and therefore all this argument about snapshots and seqscan limits is beside the point. regards, tom lane