Horton

Re: why do we need two snapshots per query?

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

View thread
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>
Cc: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndquadrant.fr>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2011-11-13T16:52:22Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Fix copyright notices, other minor editing in new range-types code.

  2. Redesign the plancache mechanism for more flexibility and efficiency.

Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> It's all very well to refuse individual cases where linkage is
> required, but ISTM clear that there are many possible uses of being
> able to tell whether a plan is one-shot or not and nothing lost by
> allowing that information (a boolean) pass to the executor.

It's an interconnection between major modules that IMO we don't need.
Having the executor behave differently depending on the planning path
the query took creates complexity, which creates bugs.  You haven't
produced any use-case at all that convinces me that it's worth the risk;
nor do I believe there are lots more use-cases right around the corner.

			regards, tom lane