Re: How to share the result data of separated plan

Marko Tiikkaja <marko.tiikkaja@cs.helsinki.fi>

From: Marko Tiikkaja <marko.tiikkaja@cs.helsinki.fi>

To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Hitoshi Harada <umi.tanuki@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>

Date: 2010-11-08T17:03:10Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2010-11-08 6:38 PM +0200, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.

What happened to:

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-10/msg00566.php ?


Regards,
Marko Tiikkaja